( 1 ) wp8720-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 8720 OF 2010 Bhimrao @ Baburao Annasaheb Ghodke PETITIONER VERSUS Annasaheb Santuba Ghodke and others RESPONDENTS .... Mr. D.G. Chewale, advocate for the petitioner. Smt. P.P. Tekale, advocate for respondents No. 1 to 3 and 5. .... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 13th January, 2011] PER COURT : 1. By this petition, petitioner challenges order rendered by the trial Court whereby his amendment application came to be rejected. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The petition is being finally disposed of at the stage of admission in view of the short question involved therein. ( 2 ) wp8720-10 4. The petitioner is the original plaintiff and had filed the suit for partition and separate possession. He asserted that he is entitled to recover his share in respect of the suit lands as described in the claim clause. He filed an application for amendment of the pleadings vide Exh-29. The plain contained pleadings in Marathi script but the amendment application was moved in English. The application was, therefore, not pressed into service when the trial Court pointed out that such amendment in English may not be suitable to the pleadings which were in Marathi language. Thereafter, the petitioner again filed an application seeking amendment to be introduced by giving the details of the pleadings in Marathi script which were to be added. The learned Civil Judge rejected the application on the ground that it was delayed. The learned Joint Civil Judge (J.D.), Renapur held that the explanation of the petitioner was unacceptable. 5. Having heard learned advocate for the parties and consideration of the nature of amendment sought by the petitioner, it may be gathered that the amendment was sought to be introduced in order to bring on record the sale transaction dated 12th March, 2008. The petitioner alleged that on 12th March, 2008, the defendant alienated one of the ( 3 ) wp8720-10 suit property to third parties by name Lochanabai, Harichand and Shamrao. There is no substantial reason coming forth as to why his explanation regarding such belated information received by him could have been rejected. The impugned order suffers from arbitrariness and particularly, the illegality, because the nature of amendment was not duly considered. The amendment does not change the nature of suit nor it was being introduced with any malafide intention. Under the circumstances, the impugned order is unsustainable in the eye of law. 6. In the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The amendment application be deemed as allowed and the petitioner is directed to carry out the proposed amendment within period of three (3) weeks hereafter. The trial Court to expeditiously proceed with the suit after the amendment is carried out. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/wp8720-10