1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 341 OF 2010 MAHYCO RESEARCH FOUNDATION TRUST A Public Trust duly registered Under the B.P.T. Act 1950, Having its Registration No. E-10202 (Bombay), Through its G.P.A. Holder, Mahendra s/o. Marutrao Chavan, As Senior Manager (Legal), Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Company Limited, B-4, Old Industrial Estate, Jalna 431 203. ....Petitioner. Versus Kishanchand s/o. Pannalal Bajaj, R/o. C/o. Bajal Electronics, Near Gomtesh Market, Behind Gulmandi Chowk, Aurangabad 431 001 & another ....Respondents. Shri. R.N. Dhorde, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri. S.P. Deshmukh, Advocate for the respondents. CORAM : R.M. BORDE, J. DATE : 18th March, 2010 ORAL ORDER : 1. The petitioner herein is raising exception to the order passed by the trial Court on 28.12.2009 below Exh. 111 in Special Civil Suit No. 19/2002 permitting amendment to the written statement. It is contended that the amendment is being incorporated at belated stage and after completion of evidence of the plaintiff, therefore, ought not to have allowed by the trial Court. 2 2. The petitioner/original plaintiff herein presented suit, claiming removal of encroachment and possession of encroached portion from the defendants. The defendants have caused their appearance and controverted the contentions raised by the plaintiff. It is not disputed that at the time of presentation of the application for amendment, the evidence of plaintiff was already over. The defendants want to incorporate the plea in respect of adverse possession by way of proposed amendment. The written statement already placed on record by the defendants infact contains a plea in respect of their adverse possession and the objection that the suit having been barred by limitation, is also raised in the written statement. It is stated in the written statement, thus :- "The land admeasuring 7 gunthas claimed by the plaintiff has been in possession of the defendants in assertion of their title since 1985; openly to the knowledge of everybody including the plaintiff's vendor as well as plaintiff. The plaintiff is also aware that the defendants are in possession since more than 12 years prior to filing of the suit as such the suit being barred by limitation is liable to be dismissed." By way of proposed amendment the defendants want to elaborate their plea which is already contained in the written statement. It is also not disputed that the evidence of defendants has not commenced when the application seeking amendment was moved. Considering all these relevant aspects, the trial Court allowed the application for amendment 3 in written statement. 3. It is also worth noting that the suit is instituted in the month of January 2002 and prior to presentation of the application for amendment under Order 6, Rule 17 of C.P.C., issues have been framed by the Court. Thus, there is absolutely no bar for seeking the amendment to the pleadings after settlement of issues. The counsel appearing for respondents/defendants has placed his reliance on the judgment in the matter of Usha Devi V. Rijwan Ahmad and Ors. reported in AIR 2008 Supreme Court 1147. There cannot be dual opinion in respect of proposition laid down in the aforesaid judgment. It is ruled by the Apex Court that there is absolutely no bar for entertaining the application seeking amendment and in the reported matter, amendment was permitted subject to payment of costs. In the instant case also the trial Court has exercised jurisdiction in favour of defendants. 4. In the circumstances noted above, considering the interlocutory nature of order, in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, no interference is called for. Petition, therefore, stands rejected. [ R.M. BORDE, J. ] ssc/wp341.10