1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 4886/2010. Shri Udhav Kacharu Ganvir -: VERSUS :- Smt. Manjulabai Balkrishna Nitnaware 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 : DECEMBER 16, 2010. Shri S.B. Walekar, learned Counsel for petitioner and Shri Velankar, learned Counsel holding for Shri U.M. Aurangabadkar, learned Counsel for respondents. Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties. Regular Civil Suit No. 791/2007 (Re-registered as 301/1987) was at the stage of final arguments. At that time, respondents/plaintiffs sought amendment and wanted to incorporate a plea in relation to document at Exh.11 dated 21.08.1992. The plea sought to be incorporated is about invalidity of the said document dated 2 21.08.1992; a prayer to declare that document i.e. the deed of relinquishment as null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs was also sought to be added. The Trial Court has found the amendment necessary and allowed it. According to Shri Walekar, learned Counsel, serious prejudice is caused because a relief till then not claimed and a contention till then not put forth has been allowed to be added. According to the learned Counsel, questions of fact and law arise. According to Shri Velankar, learned Counsel document is already on record and only contention about its invalidity is sought to be added. He states that the respondents / plaintiffs is not even required to lead any evidence in support of said contention. He relies on the judgment reported at 2009 (4) All MR 763 (Twist Spin Industries .vrs. KMH Enterprises). He points out that here also inadvertent error on account of change of Advocate has come to light. Perusal of the reported judgment reveals that there the written statement did not contain proper denial of contentions in plaint and it was found inadvertent error on the part of the Advocate. This Court also found that the written statement was copied down from reply to the 3 injunction application and hence it did not deal with later paragraphs of plaint. The fact that the defendants there had contested that application for injunction and also filed appeal challenging grant of injunction, has been taken as disclosing their desire to contest the claim of petitioner and because of this material that inadvertent error was allowed to be corrected. Thus there was no question of other side being prejudice in any way. Here the situation is otherwise. There is nothing on record to show that the error was inadvertent. Contention that, plaintiff is not required to lead any evidence, is not sufficient to hold that even defendant is not required to lead any evidence. As suit was at the stage of final arguments, it is clear that such amendment could not have been allowed. The impugned order dated 20.07.2010 is therefore, quashed and set aside. The Application at Exh.126 filed by the respondents is rejected. Petition is thus allowed. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs. JUDGE Rgd.