: 1 : 7358-11-wp=.sxw USJ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7358 OF 2011 Govind Baburao Salukhe .. Petitioner v/s. Bhimrao Baburao Salukhe & Ors. .. Respondents ......... Mr. Rajeet H. Patil for the petitioner ......... CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J DATE : 14th OCTOBER,2011. P.C. : 1. In the S.C. Suit No.1 of 2009 filed by the plaintiff, the defendant no. 1 filed an application for amendment of the written statement. That application below Exh. 88 has been granted by order dated 22nd June, 2011 by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Islampur, Dist. Sangli. 2. I have heard learned advocate Mr. Patil. A perusal of the amendment application and order goes to show that the learned trial Judge has rejected a portion of the application for amendment whereas only one amendment is granted i.e. respondent no.1 wanted to add names of two persons namely Shri Ganapat Sakharam Chavan and Vilas Bapuji Patil as the persons who were present when the oral agreement for partition was entered into. According to the learned advocate for the petitioner, : 2 : 7358-11-wp=.sxw respondent no.1 is coming out with the new case and that is how it should not be granted. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment in the case of M/s. Modi Spinning & Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. and Anr. Vs. M/s. Ladha Ram & Co. (1976) 4 SCC 320. I have perused the text of the impugned order as well as judgment cited. If the request of the defendant no.1 is granted, it would mean that he wants to add names of the persons who according to respondent no.1 were present at the time when the oral agreement is entered into. In fact, by allowing this amendment, it would help the petitioner as the petitioner would be able to cross-examine respondent no.1 as regards the persons who were present at the time of oral agreement. It will be open for the petitioner to elicit appropriate information from respondent no.1 so as to falsify the case of respondent no.1. In my view, learned Judge has used his discretion and has allowed the amendment. In my view, no interference is required in the impugned order and questions which may arise on account of the amendment are left open. Petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs. (R.Y.GANOO, J.)