(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 399 OF 2011 Yadav s/o. Dagdu Mali, deceased through legal representatives : Smt. Savitribai w/o. Yadav Mali, etc., .. Petitioners & others. (Original defendants) versus Renubai Subhash Agrawal, Age : - , Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Chopda, Taluka : Chopda, District : Jalgaon. .. Respondent. ....................... Mr. P.R. Katneshwarkar, Advocate, for the petitioners. ........................ CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 19TH JANUARY 2011 (2) COURT'S ORDER / ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. In the suit filed in the year 1995, the petitioner / defendant moved application for amendment and that amendment has been partly allowed. 2. Mr. P.R. Katneshwarkar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, states that the words "till today" are not allowed to be replaced by the words "till the year 1964" only because of impression that the admission once given cannot be allowed to be changed. He also contends that the judgments which deal with withdrawal of admission were pressed in service before the trial court. The trial court has noted them but has not applied the law stated therein correctly. According to him, withdrawal of those words and substitution by words "till the year 1964" is in conformity with the case of respondent / plaintiff himself. 3. With the assistance of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, I have perused the impugned order. The trial court has noticed all relevant aspects. It has found that the petitioner / defendants were claiming continuation of status as a tenant "till today" i.e. till filing of written statement. By amendment, that status was sought to be altered by contending (3) that they were tenants till the year 1964. The written statement has been filed after 1995. In view of this position, the trial court also noticed that the plea of adverse possession has not been raised. The trial court has also noticed that the burden to prove adverse possession is upon a person who raises it and thereafter it has rejected only that part of amendment. 4. As I find that the contentions raised by the petitioners / defendants have been looked into and finding has been recorded by the trial court, there is no jurisdictional error or perversity with the impugned order. 5. With liberty to the petitioners, to challenge rejection of that part of amendment, after the suit is finally decided, if occasion therefor arises, the petition is disposed of. No costs. ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp399