(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 10000 OF 2010 Shri Viraj s/o. Prabhakar Dahivelkar, Age : 47 years, Occupation : Business, R/o. 7, Anand Apartment, .. Petitioners Sane Guruji Nagar, (Original opponent Mulund (East), Mumbai-81, nos.1A to C) and 2 others. versus Shri Arunkumar s/o. Narayan Dahivelkar, Age : 72 years, Occupation : Nil, R/o. 24 Vaiti Bhavan, Opp. Hotel Yograj, .. Respondent Navghar Road, Mulund (East), (Original applicant) Mumbai-81. ....................... Mr. A.G. Magare, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. V.C. Patil, Advocate, holding for Mr. C.G. Patil, Advocate, for respondent no.1. Respondent nos.2 and 3 deleted. ........................ (2) CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 3RD MARCH 2011 COURT'S ORDER : 1. Heard Adv. Mr. A.G. Magare, for the petitioners, and Adv. Mr. V.C. Patil, holding for Adv. C.G. Patil, for the respondent. 2. In proceedings for grant of succession certificate, application moved under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC is found unnecessary by the trial court. It recorded that the petitioner can lead evidence without such amendment. 3. When the petitioner / non-applicant started leading the evidence, documents pressed into service were objected to on the ground of absence of pleading. At that stage, the petitioners have approached this court, challenging the order of rejection of amendment. 4. Adv. Mr. Magare, for the petitioners, has relied upon impugned order itself to show that in written statement, necessary contentions were already in existence and facts to (3) substantiate the same were sought to be added. Such addition is not prohibited even by amended provisions of Order VI Rule 17 of CPC. He is relying upon judgment of learned Single Judge of this court reported at 2010(5) Mh.L.J. 481, in the case of Ajit Narsinha Talekar Vs. Nirmala Wamanrao Kekade and others, and judgment of Hon. Apex Court reported at 2007 SAR (Civil) 431, in the case of Usha Balasaheb Swami & others Vs. Kiran Appaso Swami & others, for this purpose. 5. According to Adv. Mr. Patil, for the respondent, the facts sought to be brought on record in evidence were not pleaded at all and hence the same were objected to. The documents in support of those facts were also objected. 6. During the course of hearing, it has transpired that the trial court has already fixed the matter for delivery of judgment. 7. Considering the fact that the proceedings before the trial court are only for grant of succession certificate and, therefore, summary in nature and that the matter is already fixed for delivery of judgment, I am not inclined to interfere. 8. In the result, the petition is dismissed. Needless to (4) mention, that the petitioners are at liberty to challenge the impugned order passed by the trial court, after the proceedings are finally decided, if occasion therefor arises. ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp10000