(1) WP. 2021.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2021 OF 2010 Smt. Kusumben W/o Kalidas Wani and ors. .. Petitioners VERSUS Sau. Anjanaben W/o Rajendra Shaha and others .. Respondents Mr. C.R. Deshpande, Advocate for the Petitioners Mr. R.R. Mantri, Advocate for the respondent no.1 Mr. V.P. Patil, Advocate for the respondent no.2 ... CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J. DATED : 24TH JUNE, 2010 ORAL ORDER:- 1] Heard learned counsel. The petitioners are the original defendants. Their application (Exh.39) filed in suit (R.C.S. 22 of 2008) for amendment of the written statement came to be rejected. 2] The issues were framed in the suit on 7.4.2009. The amendment application was submitted on 29.10.2009. The learned Judge of the trial Court held that there was statement in the pleadings of the defendants that the properties were not of the plaintiff. The defendants also had denied concern of the plaintiff in respect of the dwelling house. Therefore, the amendment was unnecessary. The trial (2) WP. 2021.2010 Court also observed that the plaintiff had filed pursis that she does not wish to lead any evidence. The defendants had sought adjournment from time to time and when the evidence was to be adduced, the amendment application was moved. Since the trial Court itself has observed that there is material on record to infer that the plaintiff's concern and title is denied, mere explanation and details of the ownership claimed by the petitioners may not be necessary for the purpose of determination of the issues involved in the suit/plaint. One cannot be oblivious of the fact that issue no.1 puts burden on the plaintiff that all the suit properties described in paragraph 3 of the plaint are the ancestral properties. This issue itself includes the other side of the coin. No separate and elaborate details about the ownership claimed by the contesting defendants may be necessary in such a situation. The learned trial Judge noticed that the specific details could be submitted by the petitioners at the time of filing the written statement with due diligence. 3] Considering the proviso appended to Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the amendment at a belated stage cannot be allowed. No perversity seems to have been committed by the trial Court. Petition is dismissed. Sd/- [V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] arp