1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.9701 OF 2009 Gangaram Hari Shetye ...Petitioner vs. 1 Raghunath Krushna Shetye 2 Prakash Pandurang Shetye 3 Vasanti Dinkar Shetye 4 Jagannath Shankar Shetye ...Respondents Mr.Aniket Ranade for the petitioner CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : JANUARY 7, 2010 P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner. By this Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order by which the Trial Court has permitted the amendment of the plaint. The 1 st respondent filed a suit for general partition in respect of the several immoveable properties. By the amendment, the 1 st respondent has been permitted to add three properties to the list of the suit properties. Consequential amendment of impleading the parties has also been permitted. Amendment was necessitated on account of objection raised by the contesting defendants regarding non inclusion of certain properties and non-joinder of the parties. 2 The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the learned trial Judge has completely ignored the 2 proviso to Rule 17 of Order VI of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908 (hereinafter referred to as said Code). Inviting my attention to the paragraph 6 of the impugned order he submitted that the trial Court found that the amendment could have been made earlier and there was a gross delay on the part of the 1 st respondent in applying for amendment. He submitted that by directing the 1 st respondent to pay costs, the learned trial Judge cannot get rid of the restriction imposed by the proviso to Rule 17 of Order VI of the said Code. He placed reliance on decisions of Apex Court in case of Rajkumar Gurawara (Dead) through L.Rs. vs. S.K.Sarwagi and Co.Pvt.Ltd. And Another (A.I.R. 2008 SC 2303) and Chander Kanta Bansal vs. Rajinder Singh Anand (AIR 2008 SC 2234) in support of his submissions. 3 I have considered the submission. The effect of the impugned order is that the 1 st respondent- plaintiff is permitted to add three properties in the list of the suit properties. By the impugned order, the 1 st respondent has been permitted to implead parties who are allegedly co-sharers. It is pertinent to note that the amendment is based on the objections raised by the defendants. It is true that there is a delay in filing the application for amendment. The petitioner has invoked power of superintendence of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In exercise of the said power, this Court cannot interfere with every 3 order on the ground that the same is illegal. Considering the nature of the impugned order, this is not a case where power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India can be invoked. The petitioner can raise all contentions by filing an additional written statement. No case for interference is made out. If additional written statement is not filed by the petitioner till today, he will be entitled to do so within a period of six weeks from today. It is obvious that it will be open for the petitioner to recall the 1 st respondent and his witnesses for further cross examination on the basis of the amendment carried out to the plaint. JUDGE