ssm sm sm IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 6593 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 6593 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 6593 OF 2008 Bhoomi Development Pvt.Ltd. ...Petitioner (Orig.Deft.No.8) Vs. Yuvraj Laxman Gadve & Ors. ...Respondents. Mr.S.M.Gorwadkar, for the Petitioner. Mr.G.S.Godbole with Mr.S.S.Kanetkar for Respondent No.1 CORAM CORAM CORAM : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. DATED DATED DATED : 07th October, 2008. : 07th October, 2008. : 07th October, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. . The Petitioner, who is original Defendant No.8, has challenged the impugned order dated 01/09/2008, whereby the learned Trial Court rejected his Application to amend the Written Statement. There is no such application filed by other Defendant Nos. 1 to 7. The Petitioner is the assignee in the property through original Defendant Nos. 1 to 4, since 2002. There is material on the record to show the delaying tactics adopted by the Petitioner from time to time. 2. After hearing both the parties and the averments made in the proposed amendment Application, I am inclined to maintain the order passed by the Court ( 2 ) below which is reproduced as under:- "ORDER Perused Application and say. Heard both. Plaintiffs are original owners. Defendants claim his rights through Defendant No. 1 to 4. The legal aspects of the proceedings even though not pleaded can be decided in the proceeding if applicable. Any how, considering the stages in suit of all evidence of parties are closed. Suit was posted for judgment, by the present application, the Defendant is going again to basic pleadings contending that Defendant has no right to retain land. The Defendant can argue in the final argument about it and Plaintiff may give its reply. Said can be considered if submitted in the final argument in the issue that if Plaintiff is entitled for possession of suit property. The alleged proceedings are not later events. Much more giving the right to Defendant to raise the question. The application cannot be entertained for allowing amendment at this state, when both parties have considered their evidence. By the application the Defendant seems prolonging the proceedings when allegedly according to Plaintiff. This suit is made time bound for disposal in present month. Hence, the application cannot be granted. Rejected." 3. The learned Trial Judge has rightly considered the above facet while deciding the application for amendment in the Written Statement, in the above facts and circumstances of the case and in fact permitted the issue to be raised in the final argument. There is nothing to justify the reason for filing such delayed application and why such averments could not ( 3 ) be placed at the earliest which is likely to cause great injustice and irretrievable prejudice to the Plaintiff and displace him completely. See (2007) 5 (2007) 5 (2007) 5 S.C.C. S.C.C. S.C.C. 602, Usha Balashaheb Swami Vs. Kiran Appaso 602, Usha Balashaheb Swami Vs. Kiran Appaso 602, Usha Balashaheb Swami Vs. Kiran Appaso Swami. Swami. Swami. The amendment as sought is not necessary to decide the suit in question, as no such averments are made by the original Defendant Nos.1 to 4 to be the assignor at any point of time. In view of this, the present Writ Petition is dismissed. ( ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)