1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD 6. WP/7190/2007 with CA/1367/2010 (SUSHILABAI MADHAVRAO BIRAJDAR V/S ANNARAO YESHWANTRAO BIRAJDAR AND ORS In WP/7190/2007 -------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Court’s or Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Judge’s or directions and Registrar’s orders Orders Mr.S.J.Salunke, Adv., for the applicant. Mr.G.L.Awale, Adv., h/f Mr.N.P.Patil (Jamalpurkar), Adv., for respondent nos.1 to 3, 6 and 7. ... CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE:8/10/2010 1. The plaintiff applied, in a suit being RCS No.519/1994, seeking amendment. Such amendment was allowed. Consequent upon this event, the defendant was permitted to amend the pleadings. Till this date, there could not have been any controversy, however, under the garb of furnishing replies to the amendment of the plaintiff, new theory is accelerated by the defendant in terms of the amendment in paragraph no.3, by clause (a) thereof, which primarily appears to be scandalous and disclosing the same illustrate 2 relations between Sushilabai, the plaintiff, and one Madhavrao. This was not the purport of the amendment in the plaint as it only related to description of the properties which were left over. Consequently, allowing such amendment in terms of prayer clause (a) in the written statement, paragraph no.3, was uncalled for. The amendment, consequently, will not survive. It is set aside. Rest of the amendment traversing the amendment concerning plaint allegations will remain as it is. Writ Petition partly allowed with application in above terms. Rule discharged. 2. The learned Judge seized with the matter shall recast the issues in the light of the pleadings, hearing is expedited. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE ... AGP/1367-10ca