1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7228 OF 2007 Kishor Laxmanrao Sanas .. Petitioner Versus Ms.Jyoti Namdeo Dhamdhere & Ors... Respondents Mr.N.P.Deshpande for petitioner Mr.Vilas B. Tapkir for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 10th January 2008 P.C. . This petition is directed against an order passed below Exh.50 in Special Civil Suit No.541 of 1998. 2 2. Petitioner original defendant No.2 applied for amendment to the written statement. In fact the amendments was to the additional written statement (Exh.35). That written statement was filed pursuant to an order dated 5th June 2007. According to learned Judge para (1) of the written statement was struck off. By the proposed amendment defendant No.2 wants to incorporate para 1 which was earlier struck off. In other words, the learned Judge was of the opinion that the case sought to be introduced is that description of the suit property does not match with the agreement for sale. 3. In the impugned order itself, the learned Judge has stated that the respondent original plaintiff and to be precise respondent Nos. 1 and 2 original plaintiffs, had opposed the application for amendment by filing reply (Exh.54) but raising only one ground that the application for amendment is belated and will 3 change the nature of the suit. 4. Learned Judge has rightly rejected the ground of the nature of the suit being changed inasmuch as the amendment is not to the plaint but to the written statement. There is a reference in para 3 of the impugned order to the denials in the written statement and it is held that the plaint allegations which are not specifically denied are deemed to have been admitted. 5. A perusal of the petition and the annexures thereto including the impugned order leaves me in no manner of doubt that the application for amendment was not seriously opposed. The reason that is assigned is not even the case of original plaintiff. Their principal objection was that the amendment is belated. In such circumstances, the learned Judge could have granted the amendment by imposing costs and 4 compensating the plaintiffs for the same. 6. I am satisfied from a perusal of the amendment application that the pleas as incorporated do not in any manner prejudice the rights and contentions of the original plaintiffs. Despite amendment being allowed, it would be open for them to urge that amendment having been made at the belated stage with a view to overcome the earlier pleading, it should not be taken into consideration while adjudicating upon the merits of the controversy. By merely allowing defendant No.2 to amend the written statement, all pleas of the parties on merits are not being concluded finally. The same are kept open for being considered at an appropriate stage. The plea with regard to limitation also can also be raised by the original plaintiffs. Subject to all such pleas, the amendment application Exh.50 is granted. Impugned order is quashed and set aside. However, the petitioner 5 to pay costs quantified at Rs.5000/- to the original plaintiffs in the trial court. Upon costs being paid and proof in that behalf produced, the written statement may be allowed to be amended. Amendments to be carried out within two weeks thereafter. Amended written statement to be served on the plaintiffs within a period of 10 days from the date of amendment. After the amendment is carried out, suit to proceed thereafter, in accordance with law. (S.C.Dharmadhikari, J)