1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No.67/2005 Shriram Vithoba Ingle and 12 others Vs. Vishnu Keshav Sanap and 16 others. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. Mr. S.R. Deshpande, Adv. for the petitioners. Mr. R.L. Khapre, Adv. for respondents 2 and 3. CORAM: B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 7TH JULY, 2010. 1] Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 2] The plaint was earlier amended and plot No.547 was substituted by Block No.552. Then evidence was recorded and PW 1 was also cross-examined. The respondents-defendants also filed their affidavits of examination-in-chief. Then the petitioners- plaintiffs moved one application and sought to delete plot no.552 and to add 547 in its place. In examination-in-chief plaintiff has deposed that other survey no.91/12 has been converted into Block no.552.. In view of this development, the trial Court rejected the prayer for amendment on 24.12.2004. 3] Advocate Deshpande for the petitioner/plaintiff contends that the suit for partition and separate possession is filed in 1971 and after death of original owner as parties are not aware of exact new survey numbers or changes, the mistake occurred. His contention is only a factual error is sought to be corrected and no prejudice would 2 be caused to the respondents. He further states that the trial Court has erroneously applied amended Order 6 Rule 17of C.P.C. and in any case in the present situation only delay cannot be the reason to reject such application. 4] Advocate Kavimandan for the respondents contends that effort is only to correct the lacuna or error and to get over the effect of cross-examination. He relied upon earlier history to urge that amendment as sought is not bonafide. 5] The facts show that the matter had progressed further and in examination-in-chief evidence led is about survey no. 552. Earlier survey no.547 was withdrawn and now, same is sought to be reintroduced. In this situation, application of mind by the trial Court cannot be lebelled as erroneous or perverse. Amended Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC was not applicable still the appreciation of controversy by it cannot be faulted with. I am, therefore, not inclined to interference in writ jurisdiction. The petitioner is given opportunity to challenge the impugned order after the suit is finally adjudicated upon, if the occasion arises thereof. With this liberty, writ petition is disposed of. As the suit of the year 1971, Civil Judge, Junior Division, Mehkar shall attempt to decide the suit at the earliest. JUDGE Ambulkar.