(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 10465 OF 2010 Venkat s/o. Pandurang Suryawanshi, Age : 40 years, Occupation : Agriculture, .. Petitioner R/o. Yakatpur, Taluka : Ausa, (Original defendant District : Latur. no.3) versus Vijay s/o. Pandhari Sathe, .. Respondents Age : 21 years, (Nos.1 to 4 - Original Occupation : Agriculture, plaintiffs R/o. Yakatpur, Taluka : Ausa, & District : Latur, Nos.1 & 2 - Original and others. defendant nos.1 and 2) (Respondent no.2 deleted) ....................... Mr. S.S. Manale, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. M.L. Dharashive, Advocate, for respondent nos. 1 and 3 to 6. Respondent no.2 deleted. ........................ (2) CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 22ND FEBRUARY 2011 COURT'S ORDER : 1. Heard both sides. 2. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 12-10-2010, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ausa, below Exhibit 61 in Regular Civil Suit No. 178/2007. 3. After recording of evidence of defendant started, he filed application for amendment of written statement to raise a challenge to age of some of the plaintiffs. The trial court found that the said fact was within knowledge of defendant and hence has rejected it. 4. Adv. Mr. Manale, for the petitioner, points out that documents were received by the petitioner in the month of August 2010 and then the petitioner / defendant no.3 got the knowledge. 5. However, the ages are mentioned in the plaint itself (3) and hence appreciation by the trial court cannot be said to be erroneous or perverse. There is no jurisdictional error or perversity. 6. With liberty to the petitioner to challenge the impugned order after the suit is finally decided, if occasion therefor arises, the petition is disposed of. No costs. ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/10465wp