(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 1912 OF 2011 Smt. Reshambai w/o. Ratan Rajput, Age : 77 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. village Ranipur, Taluka : Shahada, .. Petitioner District : Nandurbar. (Original plaintiff) versus Sardarsing s/o. Thansing Rajpur, Age : 50 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. village Mhasavad, Taluka : Shahada, .. Respondent District : Nandurbar. (Original defendant) ....................... Mr. H.V. Tungar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. P.R. Katneshwarkar, Advocate, for the respondent / caveator. ........................ (2) CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 11TH APRIL 2011 COURT'S ORDER : 1. Heard Adv. Mr. H.V. Tungar, for the petitioner / original plaintiff, and Adv. Mr. P.R. Katneshwarkar, for the respondent / caveator / original defendant. 2. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 29-1-2011, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Shahada, below Exhibit 46 in Regular Civil Suit No. 54/2009, thereby allowing the application filed by the respondent for amendment in his written statement. 3. Adv. Mr. H.V. Tungar, for the petitioner, contends that by moving amendment application, the defendant has for the first time taken a specific stand of his possession over land in dispute i.e. Gut No. 518. He points out that earlier he had contended that he was in possession of Gut No.521 and now he is substituting that no. 521 with no.518. This, according to him, cannot be because of alleged subsequent acquisition of knowledge. Adv. Mr. Tungar further states that this is withdrawal of admission given and also substitution of a plea directly in conflict with earlier plea. (3) 4. Adv. Mr. P.R. Katneshwarkar, for the respondent, points out that the written statement nowhere specifically states or accepts possession of petitioner over Gut No.518. The written statement was filed under the impression that suit land was Gut No. 521 and accordingly possession was disclosed. In later inquiries conducted by Forest Department, it was revealed that correct number of land in possession of respondent is Gut No. 518 and not Gut No. 521. Therefore, the amendment has been sought. 5. Perusal of application for amendment, as moved, reveals some subsequent events and an inquiry by Forest Department. By relying upon that inquiry, the amendment has been sought. The subject matter of that inquiry is not very relevant because it will be going on, on merits of the controversy. 6. The trial court has looked into material aspects and has found it necessary to permit amendment. I do not see any jurisdictional error or perversity. The petitioner can always cross examine the respondent in the light of material available on record and attempt to prove his case. (4) 7. In the result, the petition is dismissed. No costs. ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp1912