1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No.611 of 2010 (Naktu Gangaram Meshram v. Smt. Laxmibai Ghigu Sahare and another) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's order Coram : B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. Dated : 29 th April, 2010 Heard Shri V.N. Morande, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Shri W.G. Paunikar, learned counsel for the respondents. In Regular Civil Suit No.3 of 2009, for cancellation of will, cause of action as disclosed in para 7 is of January 2007. The petitioner filed written statement and pointed out that earlier, Regular Civil Suit No.90 of 2003 was filed and that the will was disclosed in the written statement in that suit. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, to get over this stand in the written statement, para 6-A is sought to be added in plaint by pleading a compromise. He states that totally contradictory and inconsistent plea is being raised. The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, states that yet recording of evidence has not started, the necessary documents are on record, and the facts are yet to crystallize. He, therefore, states that by allowing the amendment, no prejudice is caused to the present petitioners. I find that the original plaint has been kept as it is and no part therefrom is sought to be deleted. Only additional plea is inserted by adding a compromise between the parties to Regular Civil Suit No.90 of 2003. It is, 2 therefore, apparent that when the evidence is led, the petitioner gets an opportunity to test the story as put and and Trial Court has correctly appreciated the controversy. There is no jurisdictional error. No case is made out for interference in the impugned order. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. No costs. Judge. pdl