gst 1 wp1906.07.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. WRIT PETITION NO. 1906 OF 2007. Suresh Keshavrao Yadav ... .... .... ..Petitioner. V/s Ramesh Nivrutti Deokar & Ors. .... ... ..Respondents. Mr.S.R.Roughe, Adv. For the petitoiner. Mr.S.S.Patwardhan, Adv. For R.Nos.1 & 2. Mr.R.S.Deshpande, Adv. i/by M.Legal for R.No.8. Mr.R.D.Soni, Dv. i/by Ram & Co., Adv. For R.No.11. CORAM: B.R. GAVAI, J. 22nd March, 2011 PC: By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 8.3.07 vidw which an application filed by present petitioner-defendant for amendment of written statement came to be rejected. Heard Mr.Godbole, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Patwardhan, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2, Mr.Deshpande, learned counsel for respondent No.8 and Mr.Soni, learned counsel for respondent No.11. 2. A suit came to be filed by respondent-plaintiff claiming declaration that the sale deed dated 17.2.95 is not binding on plaintiff and for ancillary reliefs. On being summoned the present petitioner has filed written statement. It appears that there were two earlier suits filed by the plaintiffs. In order to bring this position on record the petitioner has filed an application for amendment. Same is rejected. Hence the present petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned trial Court while rejecting the application has considered merits of the matter and as such the order is liable to be set aside. It is further submitted that in the interest of justice learned trial Court ought to have allowed the application. gst 2 wp1906.07.sxw 4. Mr.Patwardhan, learned counsel vehemently opposes the petition. 5. The application for amendment has been filed after evidence of the plaintiff was completed and the defendant No.2 is in witness box. In any event the fact which is sought to be pleaded by way of amendment has already been pleaded by the plaintiff in the plaint. As such no prejudice is caused to the petitioner even by rejection of the application for amendment. In so far as contention that the learned trial Judge has considered merits of the matter is concerned, the interest of parties could be protected by directing the learned trial Court not to take into consideration the observations made in the order impugned at the stage of hearing of the suit. In so far as the contention which is sought to be raised by way of amendment is concerned, since it is legal plea the parties would always be permitted to make their submissions in that behalf. 6. In that view of the matter, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. Petition is therefore dismissed with aforesaid observations. Taking into consideration that the hearing of the suit was already expedited by this Court on 23.6.06, learned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and decide the same in any case, within a period of six months from today.