1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WP No.2667/2010 Shyam F. Kashelani Vs. Vijay M. Ghorale Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. Mr. N. R. Saboo, Adv. for the petitioner. Mr. R. S. Naktode, Advocate for the respondent. CORAM: B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 28/9/2010 1] Heard. 2] The petitioner-plaintiff filed Suit in 2007 to prohibit the respondent from interfering with his property. He amended the plaint on some occasions. Along with his affidavit of examination-in-chief, he filed photostat copy of agreement dated 15.4.1988 by which the vendor of defendant had agreed to lease out the suit property to him for a period of 30 years. He also moved application to admit documents. The document dated 15.4.1988 was not admitted by the defendant. He, therefore, sought leave to lead secondary evidence. That came to be rejected, as no such agreement has been pleaded. Thereafter application under Order VI Rule 17 of C. P. C. to incorporate that document in pleading was 2 filed and that application has been rejected. 3] Advocate Saboo contends that the document showing consent executed on 10.7.1977 was already on record and various documents to substantiate to plea of petitioner/plaintiff were already pleaded. The photostat copy was also filed along with affidavit on examination in chief and only to support it amendment was sought. 4] Advocate Naktode states that in the proposed amendment, it is alleged that on 15.4.1988 the petitioner-plaintiff was present. According to him, when he was present, the alleged agreement could have been pleaded in original plaint itself. He, therefore, supports the impugned order. 5] I have perused the impugned order. The impugned order considers all relevant aspects of the matter and it was found that affidavit examination- in- chief was already placed on record by the petitioner- plaintiff. The delay in seeking amendment is found to be 3 not property explained. I do not find any jurisdictional error or perversity. Writ Petition is rejected. No costs. JUDGE Ambulkar.