1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 5191/2011 (SUBHASH WARDHAMAN DHONGADE & ANOTHER VERSUS RATNAMALA RAMBHAU MULAVKAR) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri P.S. Wathore, counsel for the petitioners. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : OCTOBER 14 , 2011 . Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. By this petition, petitioners impugn the order passed by the trial Court rejecting an amendment application filed by the petitioners. The petitioners are the original defendants. A suit was filed by the respondent-plaintiff for partition and separate possession of the suit properties. The plaintiff also sought a declaration that the will executed by her father in favour of the defendants is illegal and not binding on her. The petitioners filed the written statement and admitted that the suit property was the ancestral property. However, when the matter was at the stage of evidence, the petitioners desired to amend the written statement. By the proposed amendment, the petitioners desired to plead that the property in question was not the ancestral property but, the same was the self acquired property of Wardhman. The amendment was sought solely on the ground that the written statement was prepared in the English language and since the petitioners-defendants were not conversant with the English 2 language, they did not understand the contents of paragraphs 19 and 20 of the written statement wherein, it was admitted that the property was the ancestral property. The trial Court rightly rejected the amendment application as the proposed amendment changed the nature of the suit. By the proposed amendment, the petitioners- defendants wanted to withdraw their admission in the written statement and in stead take a totally inconsistent plea by withdrawing the admission. The trial Court also did not accept the case of the petitioners, that the petitioners were not able to understand the contents of paragraphs 19 and 20 as the written statement was prepared in the English language, in the light of the fact that the amendment application was also prepared in English language. The trial Court further considered the fact that the written statement was filed in the year 2002 and the amendment application was filed in the year 2011. Since the amendment application was filed belatedly and since it changed the nature of the suit, the trial Court was justified in rejecting the same. The judgment reported in 2007 (5) SCC 602 (Usha Balasaheb Swami & others Versus Kiran Appaso Swami & others) and relied on by the counsel for the petitioners cannot be made applicable to the facts of this case as in that case, the party had neither withdrawn its earlier plea nor had raised a totally inconsistent plea in the proposed amendment. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE