1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7770 OF 2008 Vasant Nana Devkar & Anr. .. Petitioners Versus Hiralal Nana Bhosale (Devkar) & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.V.Y.Jadhav for the petitioners. Mr.R.V.Bansode for respondent no.1. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 29th July 2009. P.C.: . Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. The petitioners who are defendants filed an application for amendment of the written statement. The said application for amendment has been filed after the plaintiff filed his affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief. The application made by the petitioners has been partly allowed by the learned trial Judge by the impugned order even after recording that there was no satisfactory explanation for delay in applying for amendment. 2. The amendment of the written statement was 2 sought for incorporating paragraphs 3A, 3B and 3C. By the impugned order the petitioners have been permitted to incorporate a part of proposed paragraph 3a and entire paragraph 3b. Permission has been denied to incorporate proposed paragraph 3C. Therefore, this writ petition has been filed by the petitioners. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the part of the paragraph 3A which has not been permitted to be incorporated is also relevant in the sense that by placing reliance on order dated 30th March 1959 the petitioners desire to contend that the suit was barred by limitation. He pointed out that in proposed paragraph 3C, the petitioners have named the persons who were necessary parties to the suit. He submitted that the contention of bar of limitation as well as the contention that the suit was not maintainable on account of non- joinder of necessary parties was already raised in the written statement and the proposed amendment was sought to be made only for elaborating the said contentions by supplying 3 factual details. He, therefore, submitted that there was no justification for the trial Court to decline the permission to incorporate a part of paragraph 3A and paragraph 3C. 4. I have considered the submissions. In that part of paragraph 3A which has been permitted to be incorporated in the written statement, the petitioners have been permitted to rely upon order dated 30th March 1959. The petitioners have already raised a plea in the written statement that the suit is barred by limitation. As the petitioners have been permitted to rely upon the order dated 30th March 1959, the petitioners can always produce the certified copy of the said judgment and urge before the trial Court that the suit was barred by limitation. Therefore, it was not necessary to incorporate that part of paragraph 3A for which permission has been denied by the trial Court. 5. The perusal of the written statement filed by the petitioners shows that the plea of non- joinder of necessary parties has been already raised. The petitioner can always adduce evidence 4 in support of the said plea and point out to the trial Court as to who were the necessary parties who ought to have been impleaded in the suit. 6. In view of what is stated above, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order. Writ petition is rejected. (A.S.OKA,J)