1 wp1472/11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1472 OF 2011 Raosaheb s/o Changdeo Ghogare Petitioner V E R S U S Nagnath @ Gangaram s/o Shamrao Patil & Ors Respondents Shri M.B. Kolpe, Advocate for the petitioner Shri D.R. Dhumal, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 & 2 CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 13th October, 2011 PER COURT : 1. This writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenges the legality of the order dated 20th November, 2010, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Tuljapur, in Regular Civil Suit No. 42 of 2007, allowing the respondents’ / plaintiffs’ application seeking amendment in the plaint. The respondents / plaintiffs initially filed the suit for following cause of action : They said that in 1981 on two occasions the deceased karta of the joint family sold part of the ancestral property without there being any legal necessity. They said that those transactions were not binding on them, and since the present petitioners were in possesion of the said lands, they filed suit against them for declaration of title and recovery of possession. The respondents / plaintiffs inter alia raised a defence that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary party. They said that in 1981, the respondents’ / plaintiffs’ karta of the family had sold the lands to one Dagdu, who is not 2 wp1472/11 made party to the suit. It seems, when the respondents’ / plaintiffs’ Advocate learnt about it through the written statement, he made the present application seeking amendment. He is now trying to add Dagdu’s legal representatives as defendants. The learned Judge of the trial Court allowed this application mainly because this amendment would not cause any prejudice to the respondents / plaintiffs and that the trial had not commenced. I am not inclined to interfere in this order because reasons mentioned in the impugned order allowing the amendment are proper. The only defect in the order and the application seeking amendment is that the respondents / plaintiffs wanted to add one sentence in proposed paragraph No. 6-A. This sentence in my view was not at all permissible. This sentence reads as under : ‘fnukad 13@9@2001 jksth oknhus vkiys etqjhps mRiUukrwu x-u- 78 iSdh 84 vkj {ks= [kjsnh ?ksrys- R;kcn~ny oknhP;k oMhykauh dks.krkgh [kpZ oxSjs fnyk ukgh- lcc lnjph feGdr gh oknh ua- 1 ph Lora= o Lod’VkftZr feGdr vkgs-’ This proposed addition in the plaint is not permissible because this is sought to be added only after a particular defence is taken by the respondents / plaintiffs. The writ petition is therefore partly allowed. The impugned order is set aside only in respect of the above mentioned portion of the amendment. ( A.V. NIRGUDE, J. ) SRM/wp/1472/11/13/10/11