1 wp6950.10 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6950 OF 2010 _____________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | appearances, Court's | Court’s or Judge’s orders orders or | directions and | Registrar's orders | _____________________________________________________________________ Mr. Omprakash Wattamwar holding for Mr. S.G. Rudrawar, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. M.M. Ambhore, Advocate for respondent nos. 1 to 5. Mr. V.P. Savant, Advocate for respondent no.6. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 1ST APRIL, 2011 1. Heard Advocates Mr. Wattamwar holding for Mr. Rudrawar for petitioners-defendant nos. 2 and 3 and Advocate Mr. M.M. Ambhore for respondent nos. 1 to 5 and Advocate Mr. Savant for respondent no.6. 2. Learned Counsel for petitioners has invited attention to assertions in plaint paragraph nos. 5, 6 and 7 to urge that while filing written statement, the defendant nos. 2 and 3 have already denied the plaint allegations in paragraph no.5 and paragraph no.7. Learned Counsel states that if this denial is read, it is apparent that admission of contents of paragraph no.6 in plaint is erroneous. He attempted to demonstrate that because of denial of paragraph no. 5 and paragraph no.7, the 2 wp6950.10 allegation in paragraph no.6 must be presumed to have been denied. Hence, inadvertent typing error is sought to be corrected and that amendment could not have been rejected only on the ground that the trial has commenced. 3. Learned respective Counsel for respondents opposed the said contentions and contend that recording of evidence of plaintiff is already over and withdrawal of earlier stand would materially prejudice the parties. 4. First question which arises for determination is whether written statement of defendant nos.2 and 3 in paragraph no.6 contains any admission. Written statement needs to be viewed in its entirety and hence when defendant nos.2 and 3 have denied plaint allegations in paragraph no.5 and paragraph no.7, effect of such denial on facts asserted in plaint paragraph no.6 is to be looked into. Trial Court can very well apply its mind in this respect while hearing the parties finally. 5. At this stage, I am not inclined to interfere in the Petition. Petition is rejected. No costs. (B.P. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE gas/wp6950.10