1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 10621 OF 2010 Uttam s/o Bhagaji Fulare ...Petitioner Versus Khatunbee w/o Khalil Bhai and others ...Respondents ..... Mrs. Pooja V. Langhe, advocate for the petitioner ..... CORAM: S. S. SHINDE, J. DATED: 24TH NOVEMBER, 2010 PER COURT:- 1 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2 Counsel for the petitioner submits that an application for amendment of the plaint was filed so as to reduce the area from the suit land and in the light of the compromise took place between the plaintiff and the defendant and also some typographical mistakes, which occurred in the plaint. However, the trial court has rejected the said application on two grounds; Firstly, the pleading in the application does not convey proper meaning or it is not clear from the averments in the application which portion is to be deleted and which portion is to be inserted in the plaint. However, counsel for the petitioner submits that it was clearly stated that there was compromise between the plaintiff and the defendant No.1 and in the light of that the petitioner wanted to amend the plaint. 2 3 On perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the learned Judge has found difficulties after reading the averments. It further appears that there were no clarity in the averments in the application and therefore, the learned Judge has no option but to reject the application. The second ground on which the application is rejected is that the application is not verified by the plaintiff. 4 Upon hearing counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the petitioner shall file fresh application with clear averments so as to convey it properly to the trial court that which portion in the plaint is required to be amended or deleted. Accordingly, the petitioner is at liberty to file such application within two weeks from today. 5 Needless to mention that such application shall be verified by the plaintiff. After filing the said application, the trial court is directed to decide the same afresh in the light of the averments in the application, within two weeks thereafter. 6 In the meantime, the proceedings of Regular Civil Suit No. 219 of 2009 are stayed for four weeks. Writ petition is allowed to the above extent and disposed of. ( S. S. SHINDE. J.) rlj/ 3