(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 2471 OF 2011 Dilip s/o. Shivnarayan Jaiswal, Age : 54 years, Occupation : Business, R/o. Kumbhar Wada, .. Petitioner Aurangabad. (Original plaintiff) versus Yakub Khan s/o. Rubab Khan, Age : 29 years, Occupation : Business, R/o. Manjurpura, Aurangabad, At present : A-1 Sale, .. Respondent Kumbharwada, Aurangabad. (Original defendant) ....................... Mr. Ajit D. Kasliwal, Advocate, for the petitioner. ........................ CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 28TH MARCH 2011 (2) COURT'S ORDER : 1. Heard Adv. Mr. A.D. Kasliwal, for the petitioner / original plaintiff. 2. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 20-1-2011, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Aurangabad, below Exhibit 35 in Special Civil Suit No. 535/2008, thereby allowing the application filed by the respondent / original defendant seeking amendment in the written statement. 3. The application for amendment moved by the original defendant, Yakub Khan, contending that he has handed over possession to some third person, namely, Nandaranibai, has been allowed by the trial court. 4. Adv. Mr. Kasliwal contends that Yakub Khan was himself not in possession and there is no question of Yakub Khan handing over possession to any third person. 5. The possession receipt allegedly executed by Yakub Khan in favour of Nandarani is dated 24-9-2010 and application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC has been moved by Yakub Khan (3) on 25-10-2010. 6. It is apparent that the alleged event is, therefore, subsequent and trial court has rightly granted the amendment. 7. The correctness of the assertions in amendment or then about the legality of alleged handing over possession cannot be gone into at this stage as it pertains to merits of the matter. 8. As I do not see any jurisdictional error or perversity with the impugned order, the petition is dismissed. No costs. ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp2471