1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR LPA NO. 286 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 1072 OF 2009 (Suraj wd/o John Nikolas & Ors. vs. Kum. Clara Sabustain Nilolas) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & F.M. REIS, JJ. AUGUST 07, 2009. Heard Shri Kilor, learned counsel for the appellants. In a suit filed on the basis of title against the appellants/ defendants, an application for amendment was moved to contend that as relationship of licensor and licensee existed, the Court of Civil Judge had no jurisdiction to take cognizance thereof and the matter should have gone to Small Causes Court. That application was rejected and rejection has been maintained by the learned Single Judge. Thereafter present LPA has been filed with contentions that the defendants are free to raise inconsistent pleas in defence and jurisdiction needs to be ascertained only on the basis of plaint pleadings and written statement is irrelevant for said purpose. Certain judgments are sought to be relied upon in support of both these contentions. There cannot be any debate with the propositions pressed into service by the learned counsel 2 for the appellants. However, the learned Single Judge has found that in written statement, the defendants have claimed that they are owners of said property. It is, therefore, obvious that before the Small Causes Court, this defence is being maintained as an amendment and inconsistent case is sought to be added in the alternative. In these situations, the learned Single Judge has found that those judgments cannot come to the rescue of the appellants. We do not find anything wrong with the application of mind. No case is made out warranting any interference. Letters Patent Appeal is, therefore, dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE *GS.