1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. WRIT PETITION NO.: 369 0F 2010 *** Shrikant S/o Namdeo Nirmale and another Versus Vilas S/o Yeshwantrao Bhopi Sonji and others *** 1. Heard learned counsel Mr. S.S.Choudhari for the Petitioners. Petitioners are original defendant Nos.6 and 7 in Regular Civil Suit No.116 of 1999. In the pending suit of 1999, at Exhibit-101 in trial Court application seeking amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 of C.P.Code has been filed. Annexure P-6 (page 42) is the copy annexed to this writ petition. This application indisputably is filed by the original plaintiff on 25th June, 2009. Plaintiff seeks amended para 4A to be part of the plaint. With the assistance of counsel Mr. Choudhari for the Petitioner, I have read proposed amendment 4A. In short, it has been pleaded in this proposed amendment that land Survey Nos.110 and 111 was owned by some persons viz. Dastagir Khonde, Vitthal Jamdade, Shankar Jamdade, Vyankat Jamdade, Raram Apparao. In other words, there were some co-sharers whose names have been referred in this proposed amendment. Further, it is pleaded that Mr. Yeshwant Bhopi died and his share in the land 2 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. was inherited by his elder son Mohan being manager of the joint Hindu family. After the demise of Mohan, land was mutated in the name of defendant No.1 being manager of the joint Hindu family. Further, it has been stated that scheme of the Bombay Prevention of Consolidation and Holdings Act, 1947 was made applicable. I have considered further pleadings also made in this proposed amendment. The application filed by the petitioner was opposed by the defendant Nos.6 and 7 in the trial Court. Reply filed in the trial court is annexure P-7, annexed with the writ petition. In the reply, it has been stated that the proposed amendment is neither containing subsequent events after filing of the suit. Application, seeking amendment, is specifically denied. It is further stated that plaintiff cannot be permitted to amend the plaint after commencement of the trial. Evidence of plaintiff and defendant No.1 is already recorded. It is also alleged that plaintiff avoided to remain present for cross examination and with mala-fide intention filed this application. This was the reply filed by the present defendant on 9th July, 2009. Trial Court, after hearing the parties, allowed the application by the order 3 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. impugned, in this writ petition, passed on 28th July, 2009. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that the order passed by the trial Court is illegal for the reason that plaintiff, after recording evidence and experiencing some lacunae now is trying to correct his case and/ or fill in the lacunae. Indisputably amended provision i.e. Order 6 Rule 17 is made enforceable with effect from 1st July, 2002. It has no application to the facts in the case on hand. Expression “Commencement of trial” was not available in earlier Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.Code. Trial Court exercised the discretion to avoid multiplicity of the litigation and resolution of the controversy among the parties. I see no ground for invoking extraordinary jurisdiction. 2. Writ petition stands dismissed in limine without any order as to costs. [S.B.DESHMUKH, J.] Dated:03/02/2010. ans/369