1 wp5016-11 jpc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 5016 OF 2011 Gulab Gabaji Pawar and others .. Petitioners Versus Sakharam Babu Pawar and others ... Respondents Mr. Drupad S. Patil for the petitioners Mr. Ravi P. Kadam for the respondents CORAM : R. Y. GANOO, J. DATED : 17rd October, 2011 P.C. 1. Heard learned advocates on both the sides. 2. An application for amendment filed by the original defendants in Regular Civil Suit No. 1739 of 2007 (filed by the respondent no. 1 ) in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune is rejected by an order dated 30th April, 2011. Against that order, the petitioner has approached this Court. 3. Regular Civil Suit No.1739 of 2007 is filed by respondent no.1 so as to protect his possession and so as to seek an order of injunction restraining the present petitioners not to dispossess him from the suit 2 wp5016-11 land. The petitioners have, in their written statement taken up a stand that there are in possession of the suit land. According to the learned advocate for the petitioners, as to in what capacity the petitioners are enjoying possession is not stated in the written statement and for that application for amendment was filed, which has been rejected by order dated 30th April, 2004. 4. After having perused the record, I am inclined to observe that the learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune has rightly arrived at the conclusion that the amendment cannot be granted after the evidence in the matter has commenced. Apart from this, if this stand of the petitioners that they are in possession of the suit land, the status or as to how they are in possession was not required to be explained and to that extent the amendment is superfluous. 5. The purpose of filing the application in the aforesaid suit by the petitioner was to oppose the stand of the plaintiff-respondent no.1 in the suit that he is in possession of the suit land. The petitioners have filed Regular Civil Suit No. 111 of 2010 in the court of Civil Judge Senior Division, Pune seeking declaration against present respondent no.1 that they are owner by adverse possession, in a matter like this, it would be open for the petitioners to apply to appropriate Court for 3 wp5016-11 taking the Regular Civil Suit Nos. 1739 of 2007 and 111 of 2010 together. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, no interference is required in the impugned order. The petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs. (R. Y. GANOO, J.)