LPA No. 232/2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 232 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 10959 OF 2010 Ramprasad Hiralal Golwa & Anr. ....Petitioners. Versus Bhagwan s/o. Hiralal Golwa (Dead) & Ors. ....Respondents. Mr. S.K. Shinde, Advocate for appellants. Mr. S.T. Shelke, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 & 3. CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL & T. V. NALAWADE, JJ. DATED : 22nd September, 2011. ORDER : [ PER T. V. NALAWADE, J. ] 1. This proceeding is filed to challenge the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 10959/2010. The writ petition was filed to challenge the order passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Sangamner, District Ahmednagar on Exhs. 104 and 109 of Regular Civil Suit No. 301/2003. 2. The appellants/plaintiffs have filed suit for relief of partition LPA No. 232/2011 2 and separate possession in respect of agricultural land bearing Gat No. 206, situated at Abhalwadi, Tahsil Sangamner, District Ahmednagar. The evidence on affidavit is filed by the plaintiffs and some witnesses of the plaintiffs are also cross examined. After recording some evidence, the plaintiffs filed application for amendment of pleadings as they want to show the area of the land as 4.27 Hectors instead of 4.97 Hectors. In 7/12 extract the area is shown as 4.27 Hectors. There is also some area which is called as 'Potkharab' area, but there is no dispute about this area of the land. One more application was filed for permission to produce some documents in support of the contention made in the application filed for amendment. Both the applications came to be rejected. 3. The learned Single Judge has considered the provisions of Order VI, Rule 17 of Civil Procedure Code (C.P.C.). The suit is filed in respect of agricultural land and for the relief of partition. In view of the provisions of Order VII, Rule 3, it was necessary for the appellants/plaintiffs to describe the property by giving boundaries or Gat number from the record of settlement of survey, which is generally sufficient for identifying the immovable property. It appears that this aspect is not at all considered by the plaintiffs. The record shows that the plaintiffs have paid Court Fees on the LPA No. 232/2011 3 land revenue of Rs. 8.55 which is in excess. The area is also shown in excess. In view of Order VII, Rule 3 of C.P.C., they are entitled to get the relief only in respect of the area which is described in the revenue record of Gat No. 206. Thus, the application itself was misconceived. In view of these circumstances, there is no reason to interfere in the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court. The appeal stands dismissed. [ T. V. NALAWADE, J.] [ NARESH H. PATIL, J.] ssc/