wp6352-11.odt /1/ Order IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 6352 of 2011 Sakharam K. Modak Vs. Maroti (Sansthan) Deosthan. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. MY Wadodkar, counsel for the petitioner. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK J. DATE : 23 rd December, 2011. Heard. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order passed by the trial court on 28.9.2011 rejecting an application filed by the petitioner for amendment of the written statement. The petitioner is the original defendant. The plaintiff had filed a suit for permanent injunction. The plaintiff claimed to be in possession of the suit property and defendant- petitioner also claimed to be in possession of the suit property. It was pleaded by the petitioner- defendant in his written statement that the petitioner was in possession of the suit property. After the evidence of the plaintiff was tendered and when the matter was fixed for tendering of wp6352-11.odt /2/ Order evidence of the petitioner-defendant, an application was filed by the petitioner for amendment of the written statement. By the proposed amendment the petitioner wanted to plead that after taking the Rabbi crop, the petitioner again took the Summer crop in the month of May, 2011. The petitioner wanted to plead that even during the pendency of the suit the petitioner was in possession of the suit property. The trial court rightly rejected the application filed by the petitioner. The petitioner had already pleaded that he was in possession of the suit property, in the written statement. It was not necessary for the petitioner to plead at every stage of the suit that he was in possession of the suit property. The trial court rightly held that the said amendment was not necessary as the petitioner had already pleaded that he was in possession of the suit property. There is no error whatsoever, much less a jurisdictional error, in the impugned order. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no orders as to costs. JUDGE Hirekhan.