MP 1 WP2613_11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2613 OF 2011 Kacharu Lalji Pingal and others ... Petitioners Versus Bhima Babaji Pingal (deceased) through LR Smt. Gajabai Bhima Pingal and others ... Respondents Mr. M. M. Sathaye for Petitioners. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. MONDAY, APRIL 11, 2011 P. C. : The petition challenges the order dated 16th November 2010 vide which the learned Appellate Court has rejected the application filed by the present petitioners / original defendants / appellants for amendment of the written statement. 2. Mr. Sathaye, the learned Counsel for petitioners submits that the learned Appellate Court has erred in rejecting the application. He submits that insofar as paragraphs 11-A which was sought to be inserted is concerned, the same was only in respect of better particulars, and as such, the learned Appellate Court ought to have allowed the same. He further submits that insofar as paragraph Nos. 11-B, 11-C and 11-D are concerned, the learned Appellate Court has found that the consideration thereof can be taken place at the stage of final hearing of the appeal and the application has been finally rejected. 3. Insofar as paragraph Nos. 11-A is concerned, the learned Appellate Court has observed that the same is a reproduction of what is MP 2 WP2613_11 already stated in the written statement, and therefore, has found that it was not necessary to insert the said paragraph. 4. Insofar as paragraph Nos. 11-B to 11-D are concerned, the learned Appellate Court has specifically observed that the matters contained therein can be taken into consideration at the stage of final hearing of the suit and it was not necessary to amend the written statement for that purpose. It can, thus, be clearly seen that insofar as these paragraphs are concerned, the learned Appellate Court has amply protected the interests of the present petitioner. Merely because in the operative order, the learned Trial Court has rejected the application, the same cannot be read in isolation and it will have to be read along with the preceding paragraphs. In that view of the matter, no case is made out for interference. Rejected. (B.R. GAVAI, J)