1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.28 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO.399 OF 2007 1) Kum. Surekha D/o- Vasant Gund, 2) Kum. Vijaya D/o- Vasant Gund, Both R/o- Lohara (Kh.), Tq-Umarga, Dist-Osmanabad. ...APPELLANTS. VERSUS 1) Vasant Tulshiram Gund, (Died), R/o-Lohara Tq-Lohara, Dist-Osmanabad, 2) Sojarbai Vasant Gund, R/o-Lohara(Khu.), Tq-Lohara, Dist-Osmanabad and others. ...RESPONDENTS. ... Shri.U.S. Malte Advocate for Appellants. None present for the Respondents. ... CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND K.K. TATED, JJ. DATE : 30TH AUGUST, 2010. 2 PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the Appellant. 2. Shri. Malte, learned counsel for the Appellant submits that though the Appellants-daughters of Respondent No.1 - father filed application for amendment, third time, the same was for substantial cause of action. It was noticed by the original plaintiffs that their father had sold certain properties to different persons and therefore it was necessary to amend the Suit and seek reliefs in respect of the sale deeds executed by the father. It was submitted that the learned Single Judge committed error in rejecting the Petition. The counsel submitted that considering the nature of the Suit, the amendment application ought to have been allowed by the trial Court. 3. We have perused the order passed by the trial Court and the learned Single Judge. We have 3 considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the Appellant. Inspite of service of notice, none is present for the Respondents. 4. The Suit (R.C.S. NO.256 of 1998) was filed in the year 1998. The learned Civil Judge had observed that the Suit was amended thrice and the plaintiffs claim that the sale deed executed be declared as nullity. In the view of the learned Single Judge, the plaintiffs had knowledge about the documents executed by their father. The present amendment application came to be filed after oral evidence of the witnesses was recorded. The trial Court observed that prior to the present Suit, the original plaintiffs filed Regular Civil Suit No.168 of 1996 against original defendant Nos. 11 and 12 in collusion with original defendant No.2, which came to be dismissed. On merits, the trial Court observed that the plaintiffs were having knowledge of the documents executed by their father. 4 5. Considering the view adopted by the learned Single Judge, we do not notice any infirmity in the Order. Appeal is devoid of merits. The Letters Patent Appeal stands dismissed. [K.K. TATED, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] asb/AUG10/lpa28.08