1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 6027/2010 (Doma Pandurang Guru & others VERSUS Bhaiyaji Keshavrao Lad & others) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri Anjan De, counsel for the petitioner. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : JANUARY 5 , 2011 . Heard. The petitioners are the original defendants. A suit was filed by the plaintiffs for a declaration that the plaintiffs had perfected their title over the suit property by adverse possession. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiffs moved an amendment application stating therein that the predecessor-in-title of the defendants by name Pandurang had not raised any objection or had not claimed any right over the suit property in the proceedings initiated under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and also the proceedings under the Ceiling Act. The plaintiffs pleaded that the said amendment did not change the nature of the suit and was necessary for deciding the lis between the parties. The defendants denied the prayer made in the application and stated that the plaintiffs had moved the application at a belated stage and the application was liable to be dismissed as the plaintiffs had not stated any sufficient reason for belatedly filing the appliccation. 2 The trial Court, however, on considering the application for amendment, the reply filed thereto and the issues involved in the suit, allowed the amendment application by the impugned order dated 12.08.2010. The trial Court held that the amendment did not change the nature of the suit and was also necessary for effectively deciding the controversy between the parties. The order passed by the trial Court on 12.08.2010 allowing the amendment application appears to be just and proper. The order does not suffer from any error, much less, a jurisdictional error, so as to interfere with the same. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE