1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 5304 OF 2009 (Bandu Bisan Zade vs. Bisan Tantuji Zade & Ors.) 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. MARCH 25, 2010. Heard Shri Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Vidya Patil, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 5 and Shri Deole, learned counsel for respondent No.6. Respondents No. 1 to 5 wanted time to file reply, however, Shri Deole, learned counsel points out that Respondents No. 1 to 5 are colluding with the petitioner. The petitioner states that he is not seeking any relief against respondent No.6. The challenge in this petition is to the order dated 07.10.2009 whereby amendment sought to plaint has been rejected. The amendment was opposed by present respondent No. 6 only. A sale deed executed in favour of Respondent No. 6 was challenged in Regular Civil Suit No. 185 of 2001 and partition of that property to the extent of share of present petitioner was sought. The parties completed their evidence, final arguments were being heard and at that time it appears that the trial Court framed some 2 issue. Taking advantage of that issue, the petitioner – plaintiff wanted to join his mother as party defendant and add all remaining properties in the suit for partition and separate possession. The trial Court considered the application and rejected it. It is to be noted that the issue did not arise on account of any amendment but because of pleadings already on record. The suit for partition of complete property could have been filed way back in 2001. In this situation, basic object of Regular Civil Suit No. 185 of 2001 was to challenge sale deed in favour of Respondent No.6 (defendant No. 6). Hence, framing of “issue” is not the occasion for amendment. In these circumstances, I do not find anything wrong with the orders passed by the trial Court. In any case, facts above clearly show that this Court should not interfere in writ jurisdiction. Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.