IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 4076 OF 2009 (Keshao M. Panchbhai & Anr. vs. Baliram M. Dhengale & Anr.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DECEMBER 02, 2009. Heard Shri Bhattad, learned counsel for the petitioners – original defendants No. 1 & 2 and Shri De, learned counsel for Respondent No. 2. It is apparent that only because original defendant No.3 in Special Civil Suit No. 32 of 1998, sought an amendment to contend that the plaintiff Baliram is not son of Manu, present petitioners, wanted to amend their written statement. That amendment sought by defendant No.3 was rejected by the trial Court and thereafter the application under Order 6, Rule 17 was moved by the present petitioners (defendants No. 1 & 2 and subsequent purchasers), mechanically without any verification. The trial Court has found that these defendants No. 1 & 2, who accepted Baliram to be son of Manu could not have been permitted to take a contrary stand in these circumstances. I do not find anything wrong and there is no jurisdictional error. No case is made out warranting any interference. Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. JUDGE *GS.