IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1435 OF 2009 Subhash Dattatraya Karle ..... ..... ...Petitioner V/s Geeta Vishwanath Uplap & Ors. ..... ..... .Respondents. Mr.J.S.Kini i/by Mr.Suresh Dubey, Adv. for the petitioner. Mr.Pankaj Das, for the Respondents. CORAM: A.P.DESHPANDE, J. 3rd December, 2009. PC: The respondent No.1 is the sister of present petitioner. The property was standing in the name of mother of the parties and after death of mother respondent No.1 filed suit for partition and separate possession of the property recorded in the name of mother. In the said suit present petitioner claimed that though the property stood in the name of mother it was in fact purchased by father out of his own funds benami in the name of mother. It is next contended by the petitioner that father has executed a will and under the said testamentary disposition the property has been bequeathed in favour of the petitioner to the exclusion of all others. Thus the petitioner claims entire property under the will which is probated. In this set of facts the petitioner moved an application after completion of recording of evidence of plaintiff in trial court was over, for producing certain documents on record and for amending the written statement with a view to point out that the father had given share of the plaintiff to her. The petitioner seeks to bring on record evidence to indicate that under certain cheques money was paid to the plaintiff. Whether money has 1 been paid to the plaintiff by father or otherwise has no bearing on the issue involved in the present suit having regard to the defense of the defendant. In that view of the matter the trial court was justified in rejecting the application for amendment which came to be filed at the belated stage and was clearly barred by proviso to rule 17 Order 6. Perused the order. Same does not call for any interference. Hence writ petition stands dismissed. 30.12.2009. 2