:1: :1: :1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.382 OF 2008 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.525 OF 2008 Baban Bhausaheb Chougule & Ors. .. Petitioners. Vs. Nana Nemisha Chougule .. Respondent. Mr.V.B.Rajure for the petitioners. Mr.Vijay Killedar for the respondents. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATED : 18TH FEBRUARY, 2008. DATED : 18TH FEBRUARY, 2008. DATED : 18TH FEBRUARY, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Both the writ petitions arise from the applications filed by the petitioners in two suits seeking amendment of the written statement under Order 6 Rule 17 and for production of additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Both the suits were decreed by the trial Court and during pendency of the appeal, the petitioners filed the aforementioned applications. By bringing additional evidence on record in the appeal the petitioners seek to contend that their possession in the property is as tenants. Such stand, as observed in the impugned order, was never taken by the petitioners till the aforesaid :2: :2: :2: applications were filed in the appeal. The appellate court has so observed in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the impugned order passed below Exhibit-19 in R.C.A.No.51 of 2006 which reads thus: "7. In the decision of Misc.Civil Appeal this court had made certain observations about the nature of possession not explained by defendants. The defendants could have then atleast searched for the documents before the trial began. One more opportunity was given to the defendants in the cross of D.W.1 Baban who was examined on behalf of the defendants, to explain the nature of their possession over the suit land. But he could not explain the same. Then under such circumstances how all of a sudden the defendants have realized that their possession over the suit land is in the nature of tenancy, that too since last 50 years. 8. Thus it can be seen that inspite of opportunity twice available, the defendant has not explained the nature of their possession over the suit property and therefore the proposed amendment cannot be said to be a bonafide attempt on their part. Amendment also suffers from delay and latches and therefore it cannot be allowed." 3. For the reasons stated in the impugned orders and more particularly the paragraphs quoted above I do not find any infirmity in the impugned orders and they warrant no interference by this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. However, dismissal of this petition shall not preclude the petitioners from initiating proceedings under the provisions of Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act to establish their right as the tenants. If the :3: :3: :3: petitioners initiate any such proceedings before the tenancy authorities same may be considered on merits in accordance with law. While granting the liberty I shall not be understood to have expressed any opinion on the right of the petitioners to claim tenancy in the suit property. The writ petitions are disposed of. (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.)