1 dgm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2864 OF 2007 -------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda Court’s or Judge’s of Coram, appearances, Court’s Orders orders or directions and Registrar’s orders. ------------------------------------------------------------- Ms.Pallavi N. Dabholkar i/b.Mr.G.S.Godbole for the petitioners. Mr.S.V.Sadavarte for respondents 1 and 2. CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATED : 14.11.2008 P.C. The petitioners/defendants have challenged the impugned order whereby their application to amend the written statement was rejected. Admittedly, there was earlier proceedings for the same property which was culminated into the compromise in the Suit of the year 1987. The facts, how they entered into compromise dated 29.11.1989 even prior to that in a Suit for partition for the same property, in the absence of any such averments made earlier, was rightly considered by the lower court and not allowed 2 such amendment application. The submission that it will not change the nature of suit and will not cause any prejudice to other side is unacceptable. The plea or the averments which are well within the knowledge of parties throughout the proceedings and even if any, specially with regard to oral partition just cannot be taken into account now as sought to be brought in by this present amendment application. I see there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order. The judgement of Supreme court in Vineet Kumar v. Mangal Sain Vineet Kumar v. Mangal Sain Vineet Kumar v. Mangal Sain Wadhera, Wadhera, Wadhera, AIR 1985 SC 817 AIR 1985 SC 817 AIR 1985 SC 817, as relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner that normally such amendment should be allowed which causes no prejudice to other side, is not applicable in view of the above facts. The petition is dismissed accordingly. [ANOOP [ANOOP [ANOOP V. MOHTA,J.] V. MOHTA,J.] V. MOHTA,J.]