1 wp 5785.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5785 OF 2011 Dattatraya Baburao Sathe .. Petitioner Versus Ayodhyabai Narayan Sathe and others .. Respondents Shri T. G. Gaikwad, Advocate for the Petitioner. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 04TH AUGUST, 2011. PER COURT : . The present petitioner is the original defendant No. 3. The plaintiff had field a suit for partition and separate possession. The present petitioner had filed written statement on record. Thereafter, had filed an application for amendment. The petitioner thereafter on 02 nd July, 2011 filed a pursis requesting the Court to consider the written statement filed by the defendant No. 1 as his written statement and not to read his written statement. On the same day as the said pursis was filed, the petitioner also not pressed the amendment application. The plaintiff gave no objection to the said pursis, however, the Trial 2 wp 5785.11 Court rejected the said pursis/application. Aggrieved thereby the present petition is filed. 2. Shri Gaikwad, the leaned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no impediment under the law to file a pursis requesting the Court to read the written statement of defendant No. 1, as the written statement of the defendant No. 3. The defendant can adopt the written statement of other defendants and so the pursis was filed. As the said pursis was filed and the plaintiff has given no objection, the petitioner did not press the amendment application. The learned counsel contends that in such circumstances, the Court should have allowed the said pursis and read the written statement of the defendant No. 1 as the written statement of defendant No. 3. 3. The defendant No. 3 has already filed the written statement. If he would not have filed any written statement, then the defendant No. 3 would have been justified in filing the pursis adopting the written statement of defendant No. 1. But as the defendant No. 3 has already independently filed the written statement, now it cannot be said that the defendant No. 3 can be allowed to adopt the written statement of defendant No. 1. No 3 wp 5785.11 error has been committed by the Court while passing the impugned order. 4. However, it appears that, the petitioner had not pressed his amendment application, as the said pursis was filed and no objection was given by the plaintiff to the said pursis. Taking into account, these circumstances, the petitioner may file an application for amendment to the written statement, if so advised, which application the Court shall consider on its own merits. The writ petition is disposed of. No costs. [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/Aug. 11