1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8189 OF 2008 Pralhad Mahadev Arbune .. Petitioner. Vs. Tukaram Khashaba Borge .. Respondent. Mr.S.S.Kanetkar for the petitioner. Mr.A.M.Kulkarni for the respondent. Coram: D.B. BHOSALE, J. Dated : 17TH AUGUST, 2009 P.C. . Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Rule. By consent, rule made returnable forthwith. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents waives service. The petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal at the admission stage itself. 3. The petitioner-tenant has impugned the order dated 17.10.2008 passed by the District Judge-1, Karad, District Satara, rejecting the application - Exhibit-25 in Regular Civil Appeal No.56 of 2004. By this application the petitioner sought to amend his written statement. By way of amendment the 2 petitioner intends to bring on record a subsequent event, namely, letting out an another premises in possession of the respondent – landlord, after institution of the suit. This application was filed during pendency of an appeal bearing regular civil appeal No.56 of 2004, directed against the judgment and order of eviction dated 3.2.2004 rendered in regular civil suit No.37 of 1981 filed by the respondent-landlord. The suit for eviction was instituted on the grounds of default, bonafide requirement, unauthorised permanent construction etc. The decree, however, is passed on the ground of default and making permanent construction without consent of the respondent-landlord. Mr.Kulkarni, learned counsel for the respondent, on instructions, submits that in the appeal the landlord desires to press the ground of bonafide requirement also as provided for under Order 41 Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Mr.Kanetkar submits that the petitioner has no objection for allowing the landlord to press the ground of bonafide requirement in the appeal, if the petitioner is allowed to amend his written statement. In view thereof, in my opinion, the application for amendment at Exhibit-25 deserves to be allowed. The delay in filing the application can be compensated by imposing costs on the petitioner-defendant. Hence I pass the following order: The writ petition is allowed. The order dated 17.10.2008 3 passed on the application at Exhibit-25 is set aside. The application for amendment (Exhibit-25) is allowed subject to payment of costs of Rs.3,000/- to be made over to the plaintiff before amendment is carried out. The petitioner-defendant to carry out the amendment within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of this order and serve a copy of the amended written statement on the plaintiffs within a period of one week therefrom. With these observations the rule is made absolute. No costs. The hearing of the appeal is expedited. The parties to act on a copy of this order duly authenticated by the Registry of the Court. (D. B. Bhosale, J.)