1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No.2995 of 2009 (Shrawan D. Rangari v. Wasudeo D. Rangari and others) Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's order Shri Alok Daga, Advocate for Petitioner. Coram : R.C. Chavan, J. Dated : 22 nd July, 2009 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. By this petition, the petitioner/defendant in Regular Civil Suit No. 96 of 2007 before the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Umred, seeks to assail an order passed by the learned Civil Judge below Exhibit 26 in the said suit, whereby he rejected the petitioner’s application for amendment to the written statement. It was the case of the plaintiffs that the petitioner was cultivating field survey Nos. 311, 312, 313 and 314 of Village Thombra as Karta of the family after the death of the father of plaintiffs and defendant No.1. In his written statement in para 1, the petitioner/defendant No.1 had specifically stated that it was 2 absolutely false and hence denied that after the death of the father, defendant No.1, being elder son, he started to act as Karta of the family and used to look after the ancestral agricultural land. In specific pleadings, defendant No.1 had stated that during the life-time of his father, his father was cultivating the family properties. In the year 1970, the petitioner left the house and was working as agricultural labourer in the fields of others. He seems to suggest that he had no ties with the family, Then comes the sentence, which the learned Trial Judge brands as admission – That after the deceased Dada Rangari has died in the year 1982 and after his death the defendant No.1 has started to cultivate the ancestral agricultural land and he was managing the family. This is followed up by the contention of the petitioner that plaintiff No.1 had cultivated the ancestral fields up to 1985 and thereafter since plaintiff No.1 got employed at Nagpur, he stopped cultivation and the lands came in possession of plaintiff No.2. He had further stated that he was doing labour work in the fields of others. Thus the entire import of para 9 – specific pleadings – is that defendant No.1, i.e. the present petitioner, was not cultivating the ancestral fields; that after the death of Dada Rangari, plaintiff No.1 was cultivating the fields up to 1985; and that after 3 1985, it was plaintiff No.2, who was cultivating the fields. Thus the case of the petitioner that the word “defendant No.1” was a typographical error in the sentence quoted above, appears plausible and the learned Trial Judge should have considered application for rectification of this error. Be that as it may, the learned Trial Judge would undoubtedly consider the effect of pleadings as a whole and would not go by one word, which is definitely not in tune with the pleadings in the case, when he decides the case on merits. No case for interference by exercise of writ jurisdiction at this interlocutory stage is made out. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. Judge. pdl