wp4111.11.odt 1/2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETN. NO.4111/2011 Chandrabhan Kesuram Kewalramani and others -vs- Rajendra Bhagchand Sawla ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders. or directions and Registrar's orders. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Shri S. R. Deshpande, learned counsel for the petitioners. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : 24.08.2011. Heard Shri S. R. Deshpande, learned counsel for the petitioners. The Trial Court did not commit any error in rejecting the application filed by the petitioners for amendment of the written statement. By the proposed amendment, the petitioners wanted to bring on record, the fact pertaining to the sale of the suit shop on 04/06/2009 in favour of one Prakash. The Trial Court rightly held that the proposed amendment was not necessary for determining the controversy between the parties as the matter related to the recovery of mesne profits and the petitioner-tenant had vacated the premises before the sale of the house by the respondent to Shri Prakash on 04/06/2009. The determination of mesne profits was for the period during which the petitioner was wrongfully in possession wp4111.11.odt 2/2 of the suit property after the termination of the tenancy and till the vacation of the suit property and since the suit property had been vacated by the petitioner before 04/06/2009, when the property was sold by the respondent, the Trial Court rightly held that the proposed amendment was not necessary for deciding the controversy between the parties. Since the amendment was not necessary for deciding the controversy between the parties, the Trial Court did not commit any error in rejecting the amendment application by the impugned order dated 28/03/2011. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE KHUNTE