1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO: 4856/2008 (Smt. Manjulabai w/o Ramraoji Mane and others vs. 1.Smt. Sonali Sanjay Durugkar and another ) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram Court's or Judges Order appearances, Court's orders of directions & Registrar's orders. ................................................................................................................................... CORAM: B.P.DHARMADHIKARI DATED: 27th November,2008. *** Heard Advocate Khare for petitioners and Advocate Vyavahare for Respondent No.1. The application for amendment moved vide Exh.98 has been rejected by learned Civil Judge Sr.Dn. Nagpur on 8th February 2008, after observing that the application Exh.67 moved earlier for the same purpose was withdrawn unconditionally. It also found that the proposed amendment had the effect of withdrawing some admissions given in written statement and it would, therefore, affect the present respondent i.e. plaintiff. 2. Advocate Khare argues that another application for amendment was required to be moved as some of the defendants had not given their consent for withdrawal of Exh.67. He argues that reasons disclosed in Exh.98 for filing it, had not been considered by the trial Court at all and according to him, the burden of proof cast on plaintiff does not undergo any change and, as such, there is no prejudice to Respondent no.1/plaintiff. Advocate Vyawahare states that the defence is being 2 materially changed and it is apparent that the application at Exh.98 is moved only because some of the defendants, as alleged, did not agree for withdrawal of earlier application at Exh.67. He states that in these circumstances, the trial Court has rightly rejected the prayer for amendment. 3. I find that the suit as filed is for specific performance and is pending since 2000. The amendment proposed is to contend that husband of plaintiff had obtained the signature of other defendants on written statement and they signed it in good faith. It is stated that he obtained signature on written statement and in 1995, the husband of plaintiff ( present Res.No.1) obtained signatures of husband of defendant no.2 / petitioner and his brothers on blank stamp papers. Thus, the story of fraud by misleading was sought to be introduced. 4. In the circumstances, I do not find any jurisdictional error or perversity in the matter. No case is made out for for showing indulgence in the writ jurisdiction of this Court. However, the petitioners are at liberty to challenge this order after final adjudication in the suit, if the occasion therefor arises. JUDGE sahare