1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY: NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.898/2011 RAMBHAU PAIKAJI MANAPURE ..VS.. SMT. LEELABAI SHRIRANG FAPNAWADE - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri Kukday, advocate for petitioner CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. D A T E : MARCH 21, 2011. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order passed by the trial court on 7.12.2009, rejecting an application filed by the petitioner for amendment of the written statement. The petitioner is the original defendant. A suit was filed by the respondent against the petitioner for declaration, mandatory injunction and for possession, alleging therein that the petitioner/ defendant had encroached upon her land. The petitioner filed a written statement and denied the claim of the plaintiff. It was stated in the written statement that the petitioner had purchased the adjacent plots in the year 2000 and had constructed on the plots purchased by him in the year 2000. It was pleaded by the defendant that there was no encroachment over the land belonging to the plaintiff. After the trial commenced i.e. after an affidavit was filed by the respondent, the petitioner filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of 2 Civil Procedure for amendment of the written statement. By the proposed amendment, the petitioner desired to plead that he became the owner of the suit property by adverse possession. The petitioner therefore, wanted to file a counter claim seeking a declaration that he had acquired title over the suit property by adverse possession. The trial court rightly held that the amendment application was liable to be rejected as the petitioner had not stated in the application as to what prevented him from raising the pleas which were sought to be raised in the proposed amendment prior to the commencement of the trial, inspite of exercise of due diligence. The trial court further held that the defendant could not have claimed the ownership by adverse possession when he claimed to have purchased the adjacent plots only in the year 2000 and the suit was instituted by the plaintiff in the year 2008. It is necessary to note that the proposed amendment changed the nature of the suit as, in the pleadings in the written statement the defendant had stated that he had purchased the adjacent plots in the year 2000 and had not encroached upon the plaintiff’s land and in the proposed amendment, it was sought to be pleaded that the defendant became the owner of the suit property i.e. encroached portion by adverse possession. There is no jurisdictional error in the order passed by the trial court on 7.12.2009 and the same calls for no interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. 3 The judgment reported in 2009(4) Bombay Cases Reporter Page 216 and relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be made applicable to the facts of this case. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE SMP