1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 8322 OF 2009 1. Bhausaheb s/o. Rama Bansode Age 45 years, occ. Agriculture. 1. Namdeo S/o. Rama Bansode Age 40 years, Occ. Agriculture Both resident of Mategaon, Taluka Georai District Beed. .. Petitioners Versus 1. Vishal S/o. Bhausaheb Bansode, Age Minor, under guardianship of His Mother – Kirtika w/o. Bhausaheb Bansode (Respondent No.2) 2. Kirtika w/o.Bhausaheb Bansode, Age 34 years, Occ. Agriculture. Both R/o. Mategaon, Presently R/at Gaikwad Jalgaon, Tal. Georai, Dist. Beed. .. Respondents. --- Mr. R.B. Deshpande, Advocate for petitioner. CORAM : R.M. BORDE, J. DATE : 28th April, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT :- 1] Rule. Rule made returnable. Petition is taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission. 2 2] An application tendered by the petitioner seeking correction in para.8 of the written statement, in respect of name of first wife of the petitioner/original defendant, came to be rejected by the trial court, in view of the order passed on 29/9/2009 and the said order refusing permission to amend the written statement is under challenge in this petition. 3] The respondents/original plaintiff instituted a suit bearing R.C.S. No. 156/2000 claiming a decree of partition and separate possession of the ancestral property. It is not necessary to go into the factual details of the matter. The contentions raised in the suit are controverted by the defendant No.1 by presenting a written statement on 28/7/2003. In para.3 of the written statement, it is noted that the name of the first wife of the defendant No.1/petitioner herein is Sanjivani D/o. Devidas Mehetre and marriage of Sanjivaji with the defendant No.1 was solemnized and the relationship is still subsisting. The defendant/petitioner has presented an application on 7/7/2009, requesting the court to permit correction in para. No.3 of the written statement in respect of the name of the first wife of the defendant No.1. It is contended that the Sanjivaji, wife of defendant No.1, was also known as Muktabai. The defendant No.1, thus wants to incorporate the alias name of his wife. The application tendered by the defendant was 3 opposed by the respondents herein, contending that there is no lady in existence bearing the name as Muktabai w/o. Bhausaheb. 4] On consideration of the contentions raised by the parties, the trial court proceeded to reject the application. I have perused the application as well as the impugned order passed by the trial court. The petitioner has placed on record a copy of the identity card issued by the Block Development Officer. The name of the wife of defendant No.1 is mentioned at Sr.No.3 of the extract. A copy of the Electoral Roll of Georai Legislative Assembly Constituency is placed on record, wherein, the name of Muktabai w/o. Bhausaheb is recorded at Sr. No. 95. 5] Thus, there is a prima facie evidence in respect of existence of a lady, by name, either Muktabai or Sanjivani. There was no reason for the trial court to turn down the request made by the defendant No.1 seeking correction in para.3 of the written statement. The lapse occurred while drafting the written statement appears to be inadvertent and the mistake occurred ought to have been permitted to be corrected. There is no extensive amendment sought for by the defendant No.1, petitioner herein. However, he made a request for effecting correction in respect of name occurring in para.3 of the written statement. Considering the inadvertent error occurred while preparing the written statement, the petitioner/original defendant can be permitted to correct the mistake and 4 the limitations prescribed by the proviso to Rule 17 of Order VI of C.P.C. will not be an impediment in permitting such correction. The writ petition presented by the petitioner deserves to be allowed and the same is accordingly allowed. 6] The order passed by the trial court, dated 29/9/2009 below Exhibit 84 in R.C.S. No. 156/200 is quashed and set aside. The application tendered by the petitioner at Exhibit 84, seeking correction in the name of his wife in para.3 of the written statement, shall be deemed to have been allowed. Rule is accordingly made absolute. In the circumstances, there shall be no orders as to costs. [R.M. BORDE,J.] Grt/-