1 wp9230.10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Writ Petition No. 9230 of 2010 Sau Karuna Hemant Patil ... Petitioner v/s. Sau. Sushila @ Susabai Tukaram ... Respondents Mr. S.M. Mirajkar for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Borkar for respondents 1-3. Mr. P.D. Dalvi for respondent no. 6. CORAM:- B.R. GAVAI, J DATED :- APRIL 20, 2011. P.C. Rule, Rule made returnable forthwith. 2. Heard. By consent taken up for final hearing. 3. By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 19th June, 2010 vide which the learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Kolhapur has rejected the application filed by the present petitioner for amendment of the plaint. The petitioner-plaintiff has filed a suit for partition and injunction. In the said suit an application for amendment 2 wp9230.10.sxw came to be filed so as to incorporate certain amendments with respect to the will deed executed by deceased Sonabai on 24th January, 2002 and some other amendments. The said application is rejected on the ground that the amendment would bring the claim beyond the limitation. Being aggrieved thereby the present petition. 4. Shri Mirajkar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that learned trial Court has grossly erred in rejecting the application for amendment. He submits that in the interest of justice the amendment ought to have been allowed. 5. Shri Borkar and Shri Dalvi, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents vehemently oppose the petition. 6. By now it is a settled principle of law that Courts have to take a liberal view in the matter of amendment. Equally, the Court is not expected to go into merits of the amendment while considering application for amendment. Perusal of averments which are sought to be brought on record for the amendment would reveal that matter which is sought to be brought on record is not relevant for the purpose of the suit. Insofar as the claim of 3 wp9230.10.sxw the respondents regarding the amendment bringing the claim which is barred by limitation is concerned, the defendants can always take a stand in that regard by filing an additional written-statement or by amending written-statement. If such as issue is raised, the learned trial Court would be required to consider the same on the basis of the evidence that would be led by the parties in that behalf. 7. Admittedly, the issues are not yet framed. As such the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 would not be applicable in the facts of the present case. Rule is, therefore, made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a) & (b). (B.R. GAVAI, J)