*1* IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5547/2009 With CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2346/2009 Bijale Abdullah Hussain and another. ..Petitioners ­VERSUS­ Ahemad Hussain Nadkar. ..Respondent ............... Ms.Priyadarshini A. Birje, Advocate for the Petitioners. Ms.Pallavi N. Dabholkar, Advocate for the Respondent. ............... CORAM: A.P.DESHPANDE, J. Dated 09th November, 2009. PC:­ 1 The present Petitioners are the original Defendants in the Trial Court. The Respondent­Plaintiff instituted a suit for ejectment and possession on the ground that the Plaintiff needs the premises for his bonafide personal occupation. The Petitioners/ Defendants choose not to lead any evidence in the Trial Court. The Trial Court has decreed the suit and aggrieved thereby, the Petitioners/ Defendants filed an appeal before the District Court. At the appellate stage, the Petitioners called upon the Respondent to place on record the deed of partition where­under the property was divided amongst two brothers. In the partition the premises in occupation of the Petitioners has fallen to the share of the Plaintiff. At the appellate stage, an application for amendment came to be *2* moved by the Petitioners thereby questioning the bonafide of the parties in effecting the partition. The submission is that the Plaintiff was in need of the portion of premises wherein the tenant is in occupation and hence the same has been given in share of the Plaintiff. Thus, there is an incidental challenge to the partition effected. The first Appellate Court has rejected the amendment application. 2 Perused the order. The same does not call for any interference more so in exercise of writ jurisdiction. In the result, Writ Petition is summarily dismissed. In view of dismissal of Writ Petition, Civil Application does not survive and the same is also dismissed. (A.P. Deshpande, J)