FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGBAD. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of | coram, appearance, court’s orders |Court’s or Judge’s orders. or directions and Registrar’s orders | WRIT PETITION NO.2388/2009 Jaisingrao Anandrao Phalke & Anr.. Petr Vs M.Balwant Lihine through L.Rs. A.M.Linine & Ors .. Respts. .... Shri N.V.Gavare, Adv.for petitioners. Shri A.P.Bhandari,Adv.for R.1 to 5. Shri D.R.Kale,AGP for State Shri S.D.Kulkarni,Adv.for R.9. .... CORAM : R.K.DESHPANDE,J. DATE : 21/6/2010. 1] This petition challenges the order at Exh.78 passed in Regular Civil Suit No.191/2005 dismissing the application of the Defendants no.4 and 5 for amendment of written statement. The application has been rejected by impugned order on the ground that the subsequent developments have been brought on record and the facts which are being brought on record by way of amendment, are all admitted and can be read in evidence by the parties. 2] The learned counsel for the petitioner Shri Gavare, has urged that the trial Court ought to have allowed the application for amendment. The suit is for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from using the land for non agricultural purposes like petrol pump, hotel, restaurant or for any commercial purpose. According to him, the necessary permission has already been granted and the activities have been commenced. These facts are required to be brought on record and hence the trial Court ought to have allowed the amendment. 3] The learned counsel for respondents no.1 to 5 Shri Bhandari, submits that the facts which are sought to be brought on record, are all admitted facts which are matter of record and there is no dispute in respect thereof. The trial Court has also observed that the events sought to be brought on record, are subsequent to the filing of the suit and the said facts can be admitted and read in evidence by the parties. 4] In view of above, I do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned order. Petition is therefore, dismissed, (R.K.DESHPANDE) JUDGE umg/wp2388-09