166lpa418.08.sxw 1 . IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR LPA No.418 of 2008 in Writ Petition No.3620/08 (D) (Dr. Avinash s/o. Prakashchandra Banait and anr. vs. Subhashrao s/o. Ganpatrao Buty and anr.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders Coram: D.D.Sinha & A. P. Bhangale, JJ. Date : 16/06/2009. Heard Dr. R. S. Sundaram, Adv. for appellant and Mr.A. C. Dharmadhikari, Adv. for respondent nos. 1 and 2. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order dt. 6.10.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the Writ Petition filed by petitioner came to be dismissed. Counsel for appellant has submitted that the order of trial Court as well as the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained in law, particularly, in view of the fact that the proposed amendment was clarificatory in nature and it was neither in the form of evidence or no new pleadings were to be inserted in the Written Statement. Learned Counsel for appellant has submitted that since the proposed amendment was clarificatory in nature, the trial Court ought to have allowed the application, similarly, the learned Single Judge also 166lpa418.08.sxw 2 . ought not to have dismissed the petition. Counsel for petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of this Court reported in 2007 (5) Mh.L.J. 593, Usha Balashaheb Swami and Ors. vs. Kiran Appasao Swami and Ors. Considered the contentions canvassed by the learned counsel. Perused the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Perusal of the order shows that the petitioner has already pleaded the facts in the Written Statement and therefore, the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that it was not necessary at a belated stage to permit the defendant to amend the Written Statement. In these circumstances, the conclusion recorded by the learned Single Judge, in our view, are sustainable in law. So far as the law laid down by this Court in the above referred judgment is concerned, there is no quarrel with the proposition; however, in the peculiar facts of the present case, we are of the view that it is of no help to the petitioner. Hence, the Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE jais 166lpa418.08.sxw 3 .