1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 56/2010. ( Smt. Meena @ Minakshi R. Wankhede -: versus :- Smt, Sharda M. Ingole and others. ) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : JANUARY 07, 2010. Heard Shri S.N. Bhattad, learned counsel for petitioner. In a suit for partition and separate possession, present petitioner/original defendant no.2 got himself transposed as plaintiff. Thereafter he wanted to amend the plaint by contending that certain properties were left out and those properties also needed to be partitioned. However, the plaintiff [original plaintiff] did not accept this contention. That application has been rejected by the Court after noticing that allowing it would create rift inter-se between the plaintiffs and petitioner never raised any such defence in written statement. It further found that, if such amendment is allowed, the entire suit is again required to be reopened and issue about ownership, possession and nature of acquisition of those properties is again required to be looked into. In this situation, it found that if certain items are 2 omitted from partition suit and there are sufficient reasons for not bringing it before the Court, the second suit for partition of such properties is not barred. In present circumstances, after noticing that the suit is pending from the year 2001, I find nothing wrong with the use of discretion by the trial Court. No case is made out warranting interference in writ jurisdiction. Writ Petition is dismissed, with no order as to costs. JUDGE Rgd.