1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 88/2011 (Saikh Basir Shaikh Nazeer (Pattewale) & others VERSUS Kurabi Shadatkhan & another) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Miss C.R. Wadekar, counsel for the petitioners. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : JANUARY 12 , 2011 . Heard. By this petition, the petitioners impugn the order passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ashti on 21.10.2010 filed by the respondents-plaintiff for amendment of the plaint subject to payment of costs of Rs.200/-. The respondents are the original plaintiffs. They have filed a suit for partition and separate possession. The petitioners filed the written statement and the trial Court framed the issued in the case. On 19.08.2010, the petitioners filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking an amendment to the plaint so as to incorporate the fact about the relinquishment deed dated 26.06.1981 and the will dated 05.04.1990. 2 The petitioners filed their reply to the application for amendment and seriously opposed the same on the ground that the respondents-plaintiffs had personal knowledge about the relinquishment deed as well as the will as a reference to the same was made by the petitioners in a reply to the notice issued by the petitioners. The trial Court, however, on hearing the learned counsel for the parties, by the impugned order dated 21.10.2010, allowed the application for amendment. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the trial Court ought not have allowed the amendment application as the plaintiffs should have pleaded about the relinquishment deed at the time of the filing of the plaint as a reference to the same was made by the petitioners in their reply to the notice issued by the respondents-plaintiffs. On hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and on perusal of the pleadings as well as the impugned order dated 21.10.2010, it appears that the trial Court did not commit any error in allowing the amendment application as the proposed amendment was extremely necessary for deciding the controversy involved in the suit. The trial Court rightly held that the proposed amendment did not change the nature of the suit and merely because the plaintiffs had not 3 pleaded about the relinquishment deed and the will, at the first opportunity, they could not be denied the opportunity to amend the pleadings, specially when the application was moved before commencement of the trial. The trial Court, in the facts and circumstances of the case, since the amendment was necessary for deciding the controversy between the parties, allowed the amendment application subject to payment of costs of Rs.200/-. There is no infirmity in the order passed by the trial Court so as to interfere with the same in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. The writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE