1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 315/2011 (Jyoti Ramkisan Prajapati VERSUS Mohd. Jakir Haji Haroon Isani & others) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri Anand Deshpande, counsel for the petitioner. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : JANUARY 19 , 2011 . By the impugned order dated 30.10.2010, the trial Court has rejected an amendment application filed by the plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It was pleaded by the plaintiff-petitioner in the plaint that at the time of the execution of the sale-deed dated 23.11.2001, the defendant no.1, was a minor. After the defendant no.1 was cross-examined, it is the case of the petitioner that the fact that the defendant no.1 was a minor was fortified. In view of the cross-examination of the defendant no.1 in regard to his admission about his age, the petitioner sought to amend the plaint so as to state the age of the respondent no.1 at the time of the sale-deed dated 23.11.2001. On hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the plaint, it appears that the plea of the defendant no.1 being a minor at the relevant time was already taken by the petitioner in the plaint and there was no necessity for the petitioner to amend the plaint after the 2 defendant no.1 gave an admission in the cross-examination in regard to his age. Since the plaintiff had sought a relief that the sale-deed was illegal and not binding on the plaintiff, there was no reason for the plaintiff to amend the plaint and seek similar relief, which was already sought by the petitioner. Since there was no merit in the application filed by the petitioner for amendment of the plaint, the trial Court rightly rejected the same by the impugned order dated 30.10.2010. Since the petition is devoid of merit, the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE