wp5059.11.odt 1/3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETN. NO.5059/2011 Ramnath Baikunth Pande and another -vs- Chandrakant Kisan Bangar and others ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders. or directions and Registrar's orders. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Shri Bhide, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Tatod, counsel for the respondents. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : 19.12.2011. Heard Shri Bhide, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Tatod, the learned counsel for the respondents. The petitioners are the original plaintiffs. A suit was filed by the plaintiffs for declaration that they are the owners of the suit property and perpetual injunction restraining the respondents from disturbing the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the suit property. The temporary injunction application filed by the plaintiffs was rejected. An appeal preferred by the plaintiffs against the order rejecting the temporary injunction application was also rejected. After the same was rejected, the plaintiffs filed an application for amendment seeking to introduce the relief of possession, in case the Court found that the petitioners-plaintiffs were not in possession of the suit property. The application was rejected by wp5059.11.odt 2/3 the trial Court by an order dated 09/10/2009. The petitioners preferred Writ Petition No.5015/2009 against the order dated 09/10/2009. The writ petition was, however, dismissed by this Court by an order dated 26th of March, 2010. This Court observed that at the stage of evidence, the plaintiffs could not have raised two inconsistent pleas. The Court observed that the plaintiffs had not stated in the application that they were dispossessed on a particular date. The Court, however, granted liberty to the plaintiffs to file a proper application for amendment. Again, the petitioners filed an application on the same lines and sought the relief which was sought by the previous application without mentioning the date of dispossession. The application was rejected by the trial Court by the impugned order dated 12/07/2011. This Court will not be in a position to grant any relief in favour of the petitioners when the petitioners had accepted the order dated 26th of March, 2010 in Writ Petition No.5015/2009 holding that the petitioners were not entitled to raise two inconsistent pleas. Instead of mentioning the date on which the petitioners were dispossessed in the present application, the petitioners again filed an amendment application on the same lines, stating therein that in case subsequently it is found that the plaintiffs are not in possession, they may be granted the relief of possession. Though the relief sought by the present amendment application appears to be just and proper in the first blush, it appears that the petitioners cannot be permitted wp5059.11.odt 3/3 to seek the amendment on identical lines when their previous application was rejected and the order was confirmed by this Court on 26th of March, 2010 in Writ Petition No.5015/2009. This Court cannot take another view in the matter in this writ petition as a view has already been recorded by this Court in the order dated 26th of March, 2010 in Writ Petition No. 5015/2009. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE KHUNTE