wp10854.10 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 10854 OF 2010 Gafoorsaab Nabisaheb Shaikh and others ...Petitioners Versus Prabhawati Arun Joshi and others ...Respondents ..... Mr. B.N. Patil, advocate for the petitioners Mr. Amit Deshpande, advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 6 ..... CORAM: B. P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED: 21st FEBRUARY, 2011 PER COURT:- 1 Heard advocate Shri B.N. Patil for the petitioners and advocate Shri Amit Deshpande for respondent Nos. 1 to 6. The Trial Court has in view of 2005 amendment to Hindu Succession Act, permitted the respondents to implead the daughter also as party defendant in the suit for partition and separate possession. 2 According to advocate Shri Patil amendment is belated. Advocate Shri Deshpande states that the amendment after 2005 to wp10854.10 -2- Hindu Succession Act is the reason for moving application for amendment in the suit filed prior to amendment to Order 6 Rule 17 of C.P.C.. 3 Trial Court has looked into the controversy. The entitlement of daughter added as party to the share may be a debatable issue but it can be resolved by the Trial Court and cannot be gone into at this stage. The suit is of the year 2000. I therefore, find no jurisdictional error or perversity. Petition is rejected. ( B. P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.) rlj/