1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 5154/2010 (M/s Chhaya Kirana Stores VERSUS Kewalchand Puranchand Jain) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri S.B. Bangde, counsel for the petitioner. Shri P.P. Kotwal, counsel for the respondent. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : MARCH 4 , 2011 . Heard. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order passed by the Small Causes Court, Nagpur on 30.07.2010, rejecting an application filed by the petitioner for amendment of the written statement. It is necessary to note that initially, the defendant- petitioner had clearly admitted in his written statement that the plaintiff was the owner of the suit house as he had purchased the same by a sale-deed dated 12.07.1991. It was also admitted by the petitioner-defendant that the sale of the suit property was subject to the decision pending litigation between the vendor of the plaintiff and the plaintiff, which was finally decided in favour of the plaintiff by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 07.07.2008. Though the defendant had admitted the ownership of the plaintiff and had also admitted that the plaintiff was landlord of the suit property, the defendant filed an amendment application, seeking permission to amend the written statement. 2 It was stated in the amendment application that the plaintiff had no right, title and interest in the suit property and the plaintiff was not the owner thereof. It is, however, not stated in the amendment application that the defendant became aware of this fact only at the time of filing amendment application on 15.07.2010. Since the defendant was trying to take two contradictory pleas, one admitting the ownership of the plaintiff and the other denying the ownership of the plaintiff, the Small Causes Court rightly held that the defendant was trying to change the nature of the defence. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Small Causes Court rightly held that the defendant was not entitled for permission to amend the written statement. In the facts and circumstances of the case and on considering the pleadings of the defendant in the written statement and the pleadings in the proposed amendment, it appears that the Small Causes Court was clearly justified in rejecting the amendment application. The judgment reported in 2006(5) Mh.L.J. 634 (Baldev Singh & others Versus Manohar Singh & another) and relied on by the counsel for the petitioner cannot be made applicable to the facts of this case. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE