1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 48 of 2010 Mr. Ashok Kashinath Shahane ....Petitioner v/s. Saidas Dattatreya Rasne ....Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 49 of 2010 Mr. Shekhar Vishwanath Kharote ....Petitioner v/s. Saidas Dattareya Rasne ....Respondents Mr. S.S. Kanetkar for the petitioner. CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR, J DATED:- January 08, 2010. P.C. Heard Counsel for the Petitioner. 2. This Writ Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenges the order passed by the District Judge, 12th Additional Sessions 2 Judge, Pune dated 18th November, 2009 below Exhibit 29 in Civil Appeal No. 272/2004. During the pendency of Appeal before the said Court, the Petitioner-Appellant took out application for permission to amend the written- statement under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. That application has been rejected by the Appellate Court on the ground that the proposed amendment do not pertain to any subsequent event. Further, no reason has been given by the Appellant as to what prevented the Appellant to assert those facts now sought to be brought on record by way of amendment, in the earlier point of time, which means at the stage of trial of the suit and in the written statement filed in the suit. It is further observed that there is no provision in the Civil Procedure Code to explain such facts by way of amendment. The Appellate Court has also placed reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court which are referred to in Paragraph 5 of the impugned Judgment and then proceeded to dismiss the Application as not proper and bonafide. 3. The argument before this Court is that the amendment is necessary to meet the ends of justice. In that, the said amendments even though not in relation to subsequent events, remained to be stated in the written statement as filed due to inadvertence. It is further submitted that one of the Judgment referred to in Paragraph 5 is not on the point at all and does not deal with the 3 issue of amendment as such. It is further submitted that the Appellate Court has applied the principle which may be relevant in the context of the amended provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, but those provisions have no application to the case on hand as in the present case the suit was filed in the anterior point of time before coming into force of the amended provisions of 2002. According to the Petitioners, the reason stated by the Appellate Court in Paragraph 5 are inapposite and unintelligible. These submissions do not commend to me. Indeed, in the present case the suit was filed in the year 1998 which is in anterior point of time and the pleadings of such a suit would not be governed by the amended provisions of 2002. The fact remains that the Petitioner-original Defendant has moved for amendment for the first time before the Appellate Court. The appeal was filed in the year 2004. In any case, the parameters to be kept in mind by the Appellate Court will have to be in confirmity with provisions of Order XXXXI Rule-27. Rule-27 of order XXXXI speaks about the situations in which alone the Appellate Court may permit recording of additional evidence. If the Court were to allow the amendment of written- statement at this stage, the necessary consequence of such an order would be inviting further order from the Court to permit the Petitioner-Defendant to adduce further evidence. If that were to be the position, it would not be wrong on the part of the Court to keep the principles of Order XXXXI Rule 27 in mind, 4 while entertaining the request for amendment of pleading for the first time before the Appellate Court and as found by the Appellate Court which do not relate to any subsequent events as such. During the course of arguments, Counsel for the Petitioner was called upon to answer as to whether the Petitioner would be pressing for recording of further evidence if the amendment were to be granted. He was not in a position to make any statement in that behalf. 3. Taking any view of the matter, therefore, no interference is warranted with the view taken by the Appellate Court in the impugned decision. Some error here or there committed by the Appellate Court cannot be the basis to interfere in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. Hence, these Petitions should fail. In the circumstances, these Petitions deserve to be dismissed. 4. At this stage, Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner may be permitted to withdraw Exhibit 29 with further liberty to file fresh application before the Appellate Court for the same relief of amendment of written- statement by pointing out the reasons for not asserting those facts in the written- statement itself and also as a consequence of such amendment, the Petitioner would be entitled in law to produce additional evidence before the Appellate Court. The request to permit withdrawal of Exhibit 29 cannot be granted. The 5 Petitioner is free to file appropriate application which, however, will be decided by the Appellate Court on its own merits in accordance with law. (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J)