*1* 29.wp.10288.10.sxw skt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.10288 OF 2010 Mr.Kamruddin Yasin Sayyad & Ors. ..Petitioners -Versus- Mr.Hasham Ibrahim Sayyad since deceased through L.Rs.: 1a) Zubedabai Haham Sayyad & Ors. ..Respondents .......... Mr.B.S.Phad for the Petitioners. Ms.Gauri Godse for Respondent Nos.1A to 1D. .......... CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. DATE : 15TH FEBRUARY, 2011. P.C. 1 By way of present petition, the petitioners challenges the order dated 28th November 2010 vide which the application filed by the present petitioners, who are defendant nos. 8, 9 and 10 in the suit, for amendment of their written statement came to be rejected. 2 The respondents/original plaintiff nos.1 and 2 have filed the suit for declaration and partition of the suit property. The said suit was partly decreed by judgment and order dated 29th April 1997. Being aggrieved thereby, the plaintiffs had preferred Civil Appeal No.361 of 1998. The *2* 29.wp.10288.10.sxw same was allowed on 29th June 2010. During the pendency of the proceeding before the learned trial Court, the present petitioners filed an application for amendment of the written statement contending therein that when they were searching old papers, they came across the copy of the agreement dated 12th October 1944 executed by the mother of the plaintiffs in favour of deceased Usmanbhai Subhanbhai Musalman and deceased Mohammad Hussain Musalman. The amendment i.e. sought, is in view of the aforesaid agreement of sale and for bringing additional property into the hotch potch of the suit property. The application was resisted by the plaintiffs on the ground that such an amendment in the absence of the counter-claim was not permissible. The application was rejected, hence the present petition. 3 The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submit that since the Appellate Court at the stage of hearing of appeal had itself granted liberty to make an application for amendment of the written statement, the learned trial Court ought to have allowed the same. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents vehemently opposes the petition. 4 The learned trial Court, while considering the application has, by relying on the various judgments, held that after remand, jurisdiction of the trial Court was limited and it cannot go beyond the scope of the order of *3* 29.wp.10288.10.sxw remand. The learned Trial Judge has, referred to the operative part of the order passed by the Appellate Court while remanding the suit. It would be relevant to reproduce paragraph 8 of the order of remand, which reads thus : “viii) The trial Court may allow the parties to make amendments and consequential amendments as the case may be, if any, regarding their respective shares in the suit property, i.e. Survey No.131/1 and 131/7 only.” 5 It can thus be seen that the amendment could have been made only regarding the respective shares in the suit property i.e. Survey No.131/1 and 131/7. Any amendment, except the one, as specifically permitted by the learned Appellate Court, would have been beyond the scope of the order of remand. In this view of the matter, no perversity could be noticed in the approach adopted by the learned Trial Court while rejecting the application. 6 The writ petition is rejected. (B.R. GAVAI, J.) -