1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1133 OF 2009 Baburao Manaji Mahangare (since deceased) 1a Digambar Baburao Mahangare & Ors. ..Petitioners vs. Baban Shripati Mahangare & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.Omkar Warange for the petitioner Mr.Mohan N.Dhamal for respondent no.1 Mr.Sameer Singh for respondent nos.2 to 6. CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 16, 2009 P.C. 1 The submissions of the learned counsel for the parties were heard yesterday. The petition was taken up for final disposal at admission stage. 2 The petitioners are the original plaintiffs and the respondents are the defendants. A suit for partition and separate possession was filed by the petitioners relating to several properties which are set out in paragraph 1 of the plaint. An application for amendment of the plaint was made by the petitioners. The said amendment was for correcting description of the suit property on the ground that inadvertent errors are required to be corrected. A prayer was also made for adding certain properties to the list of the suit properties. Reliance was placed on the written statement of the defendants in which it was contended that certain properties included in the suit properties cannot be the subject matter of the suit. Therefore, a prayer was made for deletion of the said properties. The application was 2 contested by the defendants by filing a reply. By the impugned order, the said application has been rejected. 3 The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the amendment was sought for correcting the inadvertent errors in the description of the suit properties. He submitted that the amendment was necessary as certain properties were required to be added to the list of the suit properties. He pointed out that certain properties are required to be added in view of the stand taken by the respondents. 4 The learned counsel for the first respondent opposed opposed the petition by pointing out that the application for amendment was moved after lapse of several years. He submitted that the rights accrued to the defendants by lapse of time cannot be allowed to be defeated by the amendment. He submitted that there was every justification for rejecting application for the amendment of the plaint in the suit of the year 1996. I have also heard the learned counsel for the 2 nd to 5 th respondents. 4 After having considered the submissions, I find that the court below has committed an error by rejecting the application for amendment. The suit was for general partition. The first part of the amendment is for correcting description of the suit property. The second part is for adding certain properties which according to the petitioner must be subjected to the partition. The issue of bar of limitation is always open which can be agitated by the defendants by filing additional written statement. As far as deletion of the certain properties is concerned, the first respondent cannot raise an objection to that as the deletion is sought on the basis 3 of the contention raised by the first respondent in his written statement. 6 Therefore, amendment deserves to be allowed. The trial court could have compensated the first respondent by ordering payment of costs. The amount of costs is quantified at Rs.3500/-. 7 Hence, I pass the following order : i) Impugned Judgment and order dated 22 nd September 2008 is quashed and set aside. The application made by the petitioner at Exh.137 is hereby allowed. Amendment to be carried out within a period of two weeks from the date on which writ of this order is received by the trial court. ii)It will be open for the respondent to file additional written statement within six weeks from the date on which they will be served with the amended plaint. The petitioner shall pay costs of Rs.3500/- to the first respondent within eight weeks from today. iii)Writ petition is allowed in above terms. JUDGE