1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 682 OF 2010. Mehrunnisa Begum Yusuf Khan & others -: versus :- M/s. Al Basheer Resturant & others. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : MARCH 23, 2010. Heard Shri J.J. Chandurkar, learned counsel for petitioners and Shri V.M. Deshpande, learned counsel for respondents no.1 to 4. Petitioners before this Court are legal heirs of original defendant – Yusufkhan. Respondents / landlord has filed Small Cause Suit No.103/2002 against Yusufkhan and in that Yusufkhan filed written statement and denied title of landlord. Because of that denial, the plaint was allowed to be corrected on 18.12.2003. Yusufkhan expired on 29.10.2008 and his legal heirs [present petitioners], were brought on record. Present petitioners then attempted to amend their written statement by seeking deletion of part of written statement which denied title of respondents. That application was rejected. Thereafter vide Exh.126, present application under Order VI Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure was moved by them seeking to explain the circumstances in which Yusufkhan signed the written statement without knowing its 2 contents and without understanding its implications. The said amendment is not allowed by the trial Court. Shri Chandurkar, learned counsel contends that the present amendment did not have the effect of withdrawal of alleged denial of title by Yusufkhan and it was only clarificatory in nature, hence no prejudice is caused to the respondents/plaintiffs. Shri Deshpande, learned counsel for respondents/plaintiffs on the other hand states that the signature and statements made by the deceased are sought to be clarified/ explained by his legal heirs more than 5 years after the plaint was allowed to be amended by the trial Court because of that stand of the deceased. I have perused the proposed amendment and also the impugned order. It is apparent that the amendment in the guise of clarification seeks to remove the alleged denial of title by Yusufkhan. The statement made in written statement by the deceased are sought to be explained by his legal heirs. The situation needs to be viewed in the background of the fact that because of those statements in 2003 plaint was allowed to be corrected by the trial Court and the person making that statement has expired about 5 years after such correction in the plaint. I, therefore, do not find any jurisdictional error or perversity in the approach of trial Court. Writ Petition is thus dismissed with no order as to cost. JUDGE Rgd.