lpa52.11 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 52 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 11279 OF 2010 Bhagwat s/o Jaiwanta Tandale ...Appellant Versus Smt. Kishkinda Namdeo Dhengale ...Respondent ..... Mr. V.D. Patnoorkar, h/f Mr. U.B. Bondar & V.C. Patil, for appellant Mr. B.R. Jaybhay, advocate for respondent ..... CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE AND M.T. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : 4TH JULY, 2011 PER COURT:- 1 The present Letters Patent Appeal challenges the order dated 9.2.2011, passed by the learned Single Judge in writ petition No.11279 of 2010. The learned Single Judge has upheld the order passed by the trial court by which it has allowed the respondent to withdraw her earlier written statement at Exh.16 and replace it with a new written statement. Both the Trial Court as well as the learned Single Judge have considered the surrounding circumstances due to which the application was filed by the respondent. The trial court has noted the fact that the respondent had not empowered any advocate to file a caveat on her behalf nor had she instructed any advocate to file any pleadings on her behalf. lpa52.11 -2- 2 In our opinion, there is no need to interfere in the orders passed by both the trial court as well as the learned Single Judge. In exercise of the inherent powers of the Court under Section 151 of C.P.C. the trial court has passed an appropriate order to meet the ends of justice. In these circumstances, we do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned orders. 3 The learned advocate for the appellant has relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Revajeetu Builders and developers Vs. M/s. Narayanaswamy & Sons and others, reported in 2009 SAR (Civil) 1066, in which the Supreme Court has interpreted Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C. The court has held that one distinct cause of action in a suit should not be substituted with another and that the subject matter of the suit should not be changed by an amendment. While we are bound by the observations of the Supreme Court, it must be noticed that they were made in respect of a plaint and the subject matter of the suit. The question in the present case is regarding the written statement. It is now well settled that the parameters for amending the plaint and those for amending the written statement are different. The Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed. ( M. T. JOSHI, J.) (SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J.) rlj/ lpa52.11 -3-