1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 4907/2009. ( Hanumantrao N. Raut -: versus :- Gangaprasad M. Dularia and others ) 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. DATED : JANUARY 13, 2010. Heard Shri S.G. Shukla, learned counsel for petitioner and Shri D.G. Paunikar, learned Counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2. In present Writ Petition challenge is to order dated 08.07.2009 passed below Exh.68 whereby the petitioner / defendant's application for amendment of counter claim under Order VI Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure was rejected. The amendment sought proposed to incorporate challenge to Sale deed dated 06.03.1985 and also wanted to clarify certain payments of installments made to Nagpur Improvement Trust as effected by the defendants. The Court below has by reasoned order rejected that prayer. Shri Shukla, learned counsel has contended that invalidation of Sale deed dated 06.03.1985 came to the knowledge after the defendant learnt about the requirement of no objection certificate from the Nagpur Improvement Trust. He further states that, other facts came to knowledge 2 while preparing the matter for further prosecuting. Shri Paunikar, learned counsel pointed out that the suit came to be filed on 31.08.1999 and Written Statement with counter claim was noted on 23.02.2000 thereafter, the counsel filed one application for amendment of written statement which was granted and, that was after the plaintiff was examined and his cross examination was completed in part. Thereafter, there was change in counsel, and his subsequent counsel moved one application under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure which was granted in the year 2007. Then another application under Order VI Rule 17 was moved by him and that was also allowed. He points out that this is 3rd application and matter is unnecessarily delayed. These facts are not in dispute. It is stated that, so far as the facts on record are concerned, the situation is as it is, as on 19.08.2004, when the plaintiff was cross examined by the defendant. Shri Paunikar, learned counsel is also trying to show that, challenge to the Sale Deed dated 03.06.1985 is by way of after thought, because defendant has in written statement as filed, accepted title of the respondent – plaintiff. In this situation, I am not inclined to go into the controversy in writ jurisdiction at this stage, Writ Petition is dismissed. However, petitioner/defendant is at liberty to challenge the order dated 08.07.2009 after final adjudication in suit, if occasion therefor arises. No cost. JUDGE Rgd.