wp7991.11 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7991 OF 2011 Sudhakar s/o Rambhau Patil and others ...Petitioners Versus Raghunath s/o Shaligram Patil ...Respondent ..... Mr. Ajit M. Gholap, advocate for the petitioners ..... CORAM: S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATED: 12TH OCTOBER, 2011 PER COURT:- 1 The present respondent is the original plaintiff, who has filed suit for injunction. The present petitioners/original defendants contested the said suit by filing written statement. The parties led their evidence. Thereafter the petitioners filed an application for amendment. The amendment sought was deleting some part in para 2 of the pleading on the ground that the same was inadvertently written. The said application is rejected. Aggrieved thereby, the present petition is filed. 2 Shri Gholap, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the suit is for simplicitor injunction. Due to inadvertence, the said pleading appeared in para 2. In fact, the petitioners wanted to show that they do not admit the title of the plaintiff but inadvertently, it is written that they wp7991.11 -2- admit the title of the plaintiff. The said mistake deserves to be corrected. The whole written statement has to be taken into consideration. It was a mistake committed by the learned counsel and the petitioners cannot be made to suffer for the same. The burden is on the plaintiff to prove ownership. According to learned counsel examination in chief is also over on the basis of written statement itself. No fault can be found with the petitioners. 3 The petitioners after filing of the written statement have also led their evidence. The petitioners in their examination in chief also have narrated the same thing, as pleaded in the written statement and the petitioners are also cross examined. After said cross examination was over, the petitioners filed application. The amendment at such stage would not be allowed even the pleadings are in vernacular language i.e. in Marathi, wherein specific admission has been made. 4 The court below has rightly considered the aspects and rejected the application. No error can be found in the impugned order passed by the trail court. The petition as such is dismissed. However, with no order as to costs. (S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.) rlj/ wp7991.11 -3-