1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 3264/2010 (Madhusudan W. Kide VERSUS Madhukar R. Sathe & others) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri J.J. Chandurkar, counsel for the petitioner. Smt. Leela Varsale, counsel for the R-1. Shri Apurv De, counsel for the R-2. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : JANUARY 12 , 2011 . Heard. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order passed by the trial Court on 04.03.2010 rejecting an application filed by the petitioner-original defendant no.2 for amendment of the written statement. The respondent no.1-plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration that the original defendant nos.2 and 3 are trespassers and the plaintiff was entitled to possession of the suit property. It was the case of the plaintiff that the suit property was illegally attached by the Municipal Council for recovery of arrears of taxes without following any legal procedure and the defendant nos.2 and 3 had illegally taken possession of the building. The plaintiff pleaded that the Municipal Council should be directed to release the property after accepting the arrears of taxes. The petitioner-defendant no.2 filed the written statement and denied the claim of the plaintiff. It was the case of the defendant no.2-petitioner that he was occupying 2 the premises as an employee of the Municipal Council and the plaintiff was not entitled to possession of the same. The defendant no.2 pleaded that the property belonged to the Municipal Council. During the pendency of the suit, when the defendants’ witnesses were being examined and cross- examined, the defendant no.2-petitioner applied for amendment of the written statement stating therein that the defendant no.2 became aware that the land belongs to Zilla Vikas Board and was allotted by the same to the Municipal Council, Murtizapur and, hence, the Zilla Vikas Board was also a necessary party to the suit. The plaintiff seriously opposed the prayer made in the amendment application. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the trial Court, by the impugned order dated 04.03.2010, rejected the amendment application. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the pleadings and the amendment application, it appears that the trial Court was justified in rejecting the amendment application. The trial Court observed that the issues were framed on 01.07.2006 and the amendment application was filed when the witnesses of the defendants were being examined. The trial Court observed that the defendant no.2 had admitted in the cross- examination that he acquired the suit property as a tenant of the Municipal Council and after having said that, he went on to file the amendment application on the ground that the Zilla Vikas Board had allotted the suit property to the Municipal Council, Murtizapur. The trial Court observed that the defendant no.2 had pleaded in the written statement that the Municipal Council was the owner of the suit property and the 3 defendant no.2 was a tenant. The trial Court further observed that the Municipal Council, Murtizapur had admitted in the written statement that the father of the plaintiff was the owner of the suit property. In such circumstances, the trial Court observed that there was no reason for deciding the question whether the Zilla Vikas Board had allotted the property to the Municipal Council or not. Moreover, according to the trial Court, the application was moved at a very belated stage without affording any cogent reasons for moving the same at a belated stage. Since the proposed amendment was not necessary for effectively deciding the controversy between the parties, the trial Court did not commit any error in rejecting the application for amendment when the suit was at the fag end of the trial. Since the impugned order passed by the trial Court on 04.03.2010 is just and proper, the same does not call for any interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. The writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE