(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 10423 OF 2010 Kaushlyabai w/o. Namdev Jadhav & 2 others. .. Petitioners. versus Pandit s/o. Rakhmaji Jadhav & others. .. Respondents. ....................... Mr. S.D. Hiwrekar, Advocate, for the petitioners. Respondent nos.1 to 3, 4-i and 4-ii served (Absent). ........................ CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 11TH JANUARY 2011 COURT'S ORDER : 1. Mr. S.D. Hiwrekar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, has contended that the daughter in a suit for partition (2) was essential and only on account of technical approach, the amendment has not been permitted. He states that the petitioner / plaintiff is a widow and was not aware about technicalities. 2. I find that the suit came to be filed in the year 2007 and the issues were framed. Thereafter, she also tendered her affidavit of examination in chief. An application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, has been preferred by the petitioners / plaintiffs. The trial court has considered this fact in the light of provisions of Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure and exercised discretion available to it, in accordance with law. I find no jurisdictional error or perversity with the impugned order. Petition is, therefore, not entertained. 3. In the result, the petition is dismissed. However, the petitioners are given liberty to challenge the impugned order, after the suit is finally decided, if occasion therefore arises. ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp10423