FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.936 OF 2008 ___________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | _______________________|___________________________________ This writ petition takes exception to the order dated 3rd July, 2007 passed by the Joint C.J.J.D., Omerga in R.C.S. No.43 of 2004. 2 It is not necessary to go into the details of the fact of the case. Suffice it to say that the application which was filed by the petitioner for amendment to the written statement came to be rejected by the impugned order. 3 The learned Counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the contents of the application which was filed before the Court below as well as the order passed by the lower Court and submitted that looking to the contents of the application for amendment to the written statement should have been allowed. Therefore, the learned Counsel would submit that this writ petition may be entertained. 4 The learned Counsel for the respondents invited my attention to the reasons recorded by the Court below and also to the say filed on behalf of the respondents before the lower Court and submitted that the court has rightly rejected the application for amendment to written statement. 5 After hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner and respondents and after perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the application for amendment to written statement was filed by the petitioner herein after completion of the evidence of the plaintiff and defendants. Apart from that even on merits also, the contents of the amendment which the petitioner wanted to carry out to the written statement show that those were within knowledge of the petitioner at the time of filing main written statement. The assertion of the petitioner by way of amendment was that some of the properties are self-acquired, and even at the time of filing main written statement, it was within the knowledge of the petitioner and, therefore, the learned Judge has rejected the application. On careful perusal of the Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the view taken by the learned Judge does not warrant any interference. Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed. (S.S. SHINDE, J). 14.08.2009. PLK/#