1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 928/2009 [Deorao Bhayyaji Bhandekar & others ..vs.. Smt. Bulkabai Jairam Balki & others ] - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri Sharma h/f Shri Parchure , counsel for the petitioners. Shri Sirpurkar, counsel for the respondent2 to 5. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : NOVEMBER 17, 2009. By the petition, the petitioners impugn the order passed on 14.1.2009by the District Judge -2 Chandrapur on 14.1.2009, rejecting an application for amendment of the written statement. The suit was filed by respondent no.1 to 5 for declaration and permanent injunction. It was the case of the respondents no.1 to 5 that 9.6 H.R. of land was not sold to the petitioner and the sale deed dated 10.3.1993 was a forged document. The suit filed by the respondents no.1 to 5 was decreed. In an appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment and decree on 4.11.2004, the amendment application was moved by the petitioner for amendment of the written statement on 15.11.2008. The District Judge-2, Chandrapur however, rejected the application. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the impugned order dated 14.11.2009, along with application for 2 amendment of written statement, it is clear that the District Judge-2 Chandrapur did not commit any error in dismissing the application for amendment of the written statement. The facts stated in the proposed amendment were within the knowledge of the petitioner and it is also mentioned in the application that these material facts were not pleaded by the petitioner by way of special pleadings. In such circumstance, the appellate court rightly held that the period of 6 years had lapsed and no explanation was given as to why the pleadings were not made in the original written statement and the application was not moved within a reasonable time. The first appellate court held that there was no due diligence on the part of the petitioners in moving the application. Even otherwise, according to the appellate court, the legality of the sale deed was a material issue framed by the trial court and there was no necessity to amend the written statement at the belated stage. There is no error in the order dated 14.1.2009, much less a jurisdictional error to interfere with the same in exercise of writ jurisdiction. In the result the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE SMP