1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6423 OF 2009 Smt. Kamalbai w/o. Anna Gokule, Age 64 years, Occ. Agril and Household, R/o. Madalmohi, Tq. Georai, Dist. Beed. .. petitioners Versus 1] Kisan s/o. Anna Gokule Age 29 years, Occ. Agril, R/o. Vanjarwadi, Tq. Georai Dist. Beed. 2] Baliram s/o. Anna Gokule Age 27 years, Occ. And r/o. As above. .. Respondent. --- Mr.Vikas V. Patil, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. A.N. Nagargoje, Advocate for the respondent. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI,J. DATE : 17th December, 2009. 2 ORAL ORDER :- 1] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2] By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 29th July, 2009, passed by the learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Georai, vide which the application filed by the present petitioner for amendment of the written statement came to be rejected. 3] The respondents/plaintiffs have filed a suit for partition and separate possession. The suit is resisted by the present petitioners by filing a written statement, basically on the ground that the properties in question were purchased by the deceased husband of the petitioner from his own funds and, therefore, the plaintiffs do not have any right in the suit properties. 4] The petitioners thereafter filed an application for amendment of the written statement for amplifying the said stand. It was sought to be brought on record that the plaintiff was not even born when the properties were purchased by the husband of the petitioner. The said application was opposed by the respondents/plaintiffs. The learned trial court, by the impugned order has rejected the said application. Hence, the present petition. 5] Shri Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial court court has grossly erred in rejecting the application for amendment. He submits that the petitioner only wanted to amplify the stand taken by her in the written statement. 3 6] Shri Nagargoje, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents on the contrary submits that the application is filed only with an intention to protract the trial. He submits that the learned trial court has rightly rejected the application. 7] It is settled law that courts have to take a liberal view for grant of amendment, in so far as the amendment of the written statement is concerned. It is also a settled law that , apart from taking alternate pleas, the defendant is also entitled to take inconsistent pleas. It is further a settled law that at the stage of consideration of application for amendment, the court is not required to go into the aspect of merits of the matter. From the perusal of the impugned order, it would reveal that the learned trial court while rejecting the application has gone into the merits of the matter, which, in my view, is not permissible in law. It is also not in dispute that the issues are yet to be framed in the matter. It is thus clear that the trial is yet to commence. 8] In that view of the matter, I find that the learned trial court has erred in rejecting the application for amendment. Rule is , therefore, made absolute in terms of prayer clause (B). [B.R. GAVAI,J.] Grt/- 4