1 wp 7050.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7050 OF 2010 Suryakant S/o Gurunath Muley and others .. Petitioners Versus Shivaji S/o Sadashiv Rodge and others .. Respondents Shri V. T. Sakolkar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri M. D. Gitte, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 01ST DECEMBER, 2011. PER COURT : . The petitioners are the original plaintiffs who have filed the suit for declaration of ownership and perpetual injunction. The said suit is filed in the year 2001. Thereafter, the petitioners amended the plaint. The petitioners thereafter on or about 23 rd February, 2009 filed an application for amendment (Exhibit 107). Vide the said proposed amendment the petitioners sought to challenge the sale deeds executed in the year 1988, 1995 and 2000. So also sought to add those purchasers as parties. The 2 wp 7050.10 said amendment application is rejected. Aggrieved thereby the present petition is filed. 2. Shri V. T. Sakolkar, the learned counsel for petitioners contends that the Court ought to have allowed the amendment application. The amendment application is filed bonafide. The petitioners are rustic persons coming from village. They relied on the advocate. Because of the negligence of the advocate the litigant should not suffer. According to the learned counsel the respondents are indulging in alienation of the properties even during the pendency of the suit. The application for amendment should be liberally construed. The learned counsel further contends that the nature of the suit would not change. 3. With the assistance of learned counsel I have gone through the pleadings, the application for amendment and the order. The sale deeds sought to be challenged are dated 17.05.1988, 29.06.1988, 16.10.1995 and 03.10.2000 executed by the brothers of the plaintiffs in favour of defendants and other persons. 4. The Court has observed that earlier there were suits bearing R.C.S. No. 212/1988, R.C.S. No. 195/1988, R.C.S. No. 3 wp 7050.10 379/1999 between the plaintiffs and their brothers and other persons. The present plaintiffs had knowledge of all the transactions prior to filing of present suit. Though the plaintiffs had the knowledge of all these transactions, the plaintiffs did not take any action, nor claimed any relief when the suit was filed in the year 2001. Although the suit was filed in the year 2001, the present application is moved in the year 2009. No explanation is coming forth for such an inordinate delay. Even otherwise if the said transactions were within the knowledge of plaintiffs during the earlier suits itself, then the question of limitation would arise. The Trial Court has considered this aspect also. It it also submitted that today the evidence of parties is complete. 5. The Court below has properly considered all these aspects and has rightly rejected the application. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed, however, with no order as to costs. [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/Dec. 11