1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 564 OF 2009 in WRIT PETITION NO.5294/2009 (D) (Bindya @ Harshada W/o Jogendra Lonare ..vs.. Jogendra S/o Narendra Lonare) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. Mrs. S.N.Deshpande, Advocate for the Appellant CORAM : A.H.JOSHI & A.R.JOSHI, JJ. DATED : DECEMBER 15, 2009. 1. Heard learned Advocate Mrs. S.N.Deshpande. 2. Perused plaint, the written statement, the application for amendment and both impugned orders. 3, Reply to paras 8 & 9 of the plaint as seen in the written statement consists of due and adequate denial. The averments contained in paras 8 and 9 of the plaint on which emphasis is given by learned Advocate for appellant, are of such that no special personal knowledge of the defendant is required to be disclosed. 4. Therefore, amendment of written statement, clearly, is not a requirement in law and demand of justice, but is a demand by a pestering defendant. 5. Learned Advocate Mrs. S.N.Deshpande relies on following judgments : a) AIR 2005 Madras 66 (L.Narayan Reddy ..vs... P. Narayan Reddy and others) 2 b) 2007(1) Mh.L.J. 331 (Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. ..vs.. Precious Finance Investment Pvt. Ltd.) c) 2009(4) Mh.L.J. 30 (Vidyabai and others ..vs.. Padmalatha and others) d) 2009(5) Mh.L.J. 253 (NTPC Limited, New Delhi ..vs.. Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai) e) 2009(6) All MR 986 (Revajeetu Builders and Developers ..vs.. Narayanswamy and sons and others) 6. In the light of facts, as discussed herein before, it shall be of no gain to devote any further time in discussing the precedents cited at bar. 7. Appeal has no merit, and is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE Diwale