1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.5660 OF 2009 Nitinkumar Vasantrao Thakur, Age: 46 years, Occ: Agri., R/o. Hiwara Bk, Tq. Majalgaon, District Beed. .. Petitioner Versus Hariram Ramchandra Sarda, Age: 83 years, Occ: Agri., R/o. Hiwra Bk, Tq. Majalgaon, & Ors. .. Respondents ... Mr. Vivek Bhavthankar, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. B.S. Kudale, Advocate for Respondent No.1. Mr. N.H. Borade, A.G.P. for Resp.Nos.2,3,8 & 9. ... CORAM : K.K. TATED, J. DATE : 15TH OCTOBER, 2009. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 and learned A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 2,3,8 and 9. 2 2. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner - original defendant No. 9 challenges the order dated 24-06-2009 passed by the trial Court rejecting the petitioner's application dated 16-03-2009 for amendment of W.S. 3. In the present case, respondent No. 1 - original plaintiff filed Special Civil Suit No. 20/2007 before the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Majalgaon for declaration and ownership in respect of agricultural land admeasuring 12 Acres situated at Hiwra Tq. Majalgaon District Beed. Said suit filed by respondent No. 1 on 31-01-2007. Thereafter, the petitioner filed his W.S. on 11-06-2007. Respondent No. 1 - original plaintiff also filed application dated 07-10-2008 for amendment of plaint. In the said application, it is specifically stated by respondent No. 1 that after going through W.S. of the petitioner, he require to file application for amendment of 3 plaint. 4. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1 - original plaintiff stated across the Bar that respondent No.1's application dated 07-10-2008 is allowed by the trial Court i.e. for amendment of plaint. It is to be noted that once amendment is allowed by the Court and permitted the plaintiff to amend the suit / plaint, in that case, the defendant is entitled to file his additional W.S. if so. 5. In the present case, though respondent No. 1's application dated 07-10-2008 for amendment of plaint is allowed, the trial Court rejected the petitioner's application dated 12-03-2009 for amendment of W.S. on the ground that respondent No.1's evidence is started. Apex Court in the matter of Andhra Bank vs. ABN Amro Bank N.V. & Others reported in 2008(1) Bom.C.R. 836 held that delay is no ground for refusal for 4 prayer of amendment. Head Note A reads as under. "(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, O.6, R.17- Written Statement-Amendment of- Relevance of delay- Held, settled position of law is that delay is no ground for refusal for prayer of amendment. Only point to be seen at the time is whether such amendment would be necessary for decision of controversy between parties in suit. Court cannot go into merits of document at this stage". . In any case, as pointed out by learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1 that his application for amendment is already allowed by the trial Court, the petitioner is entitled to file his additional W.S. 6. Considering these facts, permission is granted to the petitioner to file his additional W.S. in Special Civil Suit No. 20/2007 pending before the Court of Civil Judge, S.D. Majalgaon within eight (8) weeks from today. With this 5 direction, Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. [ K.K. TATED, J.] sut/OCT09/wp5660.09