1 WP No.3136/10 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3136 of 2010 Anant Sakharam Marathe and ors ... Petitioners versus Dhondu Dadu Kasar @ Marathe & Anr ... Respondents ... Mr.M.D.Parab i.b Milind Parab & Associates for the petitioners Mr.Atul Damle i/b Rupesh Lanjekar for respondent nos.1 and 2. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J DATED : 8th August 2011 P.C. 1. This petition is directed against the interlocutory order allowing only part of the application for amendment of the written statement. 2. Petitioners are the defendants. Their application for amendment was particularly allowed. Amendment by which permission was sought to add the genealogy showing relationship between the parties was allowed. However, further amendment was rejected. Aggrieved by the denial of the other amendment, petitioners have filed the present writ petition. 2 WP No.3136/10 3. Perusal of the written statement and proposed amendment shows that the amendment sought to be introduced by the written statement is contrary to the original case made in the written statement and also creates contradictions in the written statement itself. In paragraph no.13 of the original written statement, defendants have pleaded about a compromise by mediation (compromise through panchas). They have pleaded that a compromise list (panchyadi) was prepared in the presence of plaintiffs, defendant no.5, Deepak-son of defendant no.1 and others. Similarly, in paragraph no.14 of the original written statement, they have pleaded that as per the compromise made before the panchas, the defendant no.5 and others started construction of certain houses. By the proposed amendment, the defendants have not proposed amendment in paragraph no.13 but have proposed amendment in paragraph no.14 to substitute “defendant nos.1 to 4” in place of “defendant no.5”. In my view, this totally alters the case because in the initial case it was pleaded that defendant no.5 and son of defendant no.1 were present at the time of compromise yadi, while now they want to say that to substitute the presence of defendant nos.1 to 4 by defendant no.5 which cannot be allowed. This being contradictory to the original written statement cannot be allowed and the trial court has rightly rejected the amendment. There is no merit in the writ petition which is hereby rejected. (D.G.KARNIK, J)