1 WP-5272.11.sxw lgc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5272 OF 2011 Ganpatrao Dnyanoba Kadam : Petitioners Versus Anandi Ganpatrao Chavan and ors. : Respondents. Mr.Surel Shah a/w Mrs.Gauri Ghosalkar Shah for the Petitioners. Mr.Amit Borkar for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4. CORAM : R M SAVANT, JJ. DATE : 08th November 2011 P.C. 1 The writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is invoked challenging the order dated 23/02/2011 passed by the learned 3rd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kolhapur by which order the amendment application filed by the Respondents herein came to be allowed. The Respondents herein are the original Plaintiffs who have filed Special Civil Suit No.306/2002 for partition of the suit property mentioned in Para 1 of the plaint. An application Exhibit66 was moved for amendment of the plaint so as to claim mense profits. The said application came to be allowed by the trial Court inter alia on the ground that to avoid multiplicity of the proceedings, it was necessary to allow the amendment. The trial Court has further held that even if the amendment is allowed, no prejudice would be caused to the Petitioners herein as the Petitioners can file their additional written statement. Though the suit is of the year 2002, there has been delay in disposal of the said suit on account of the fact that some time 2 WP-5272.11.sxw was lost in obtaining the opinion of the hand writing expert and thereafter the report in respect of the thumb impression. The trial Court was of the view that the said delay could not be attributed to the Plaintiffs. 2 In my view, the reasons mentioned by the trial Court whilst allowing the said amendment application are unexceptional and do not merit interference in the writ jurisdiction. Reliance placed by the learned counsel for the Petitioners on the judgment of the Apex Court reported in 2009(1) All MR 471 in the matter of Vidyabai and ors v/s Padmalatha & anr. in the facts of the present case is misplaced. 3 In that view of the matter, no case for interdiction is made out. The above Petition is accordingly dismissed. [R.M.SAVANT, J]