1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. WRIT PETITION NO.: 8809 0F 2009 *** Prabhu S/o Aba Raut Versus Ramrao Bhagwantrao Raut *** 1. Heard learned counsel Mr. Sukhdeo D. Ingale, instructed by learned counsel Mr. N. M. Patil Beedkar. Petitioner is original defendant in Regular Civil Suit No.161 of 2006. The Respondent/ plaintiff has filed Regular Civil Suit No.161 of 2006 declaration that he is owner of the suit property and for perpetual injunction. The suit is filed on 31st July, 2006. After filing this suit, summons was issued to the Respondent/ defendant. He entered appearance, filed written statement Annexure-B. Thereafter, it appears that issues were framed by the trial Court. Exhibit-D is the copy of the issues. These issues were framed on 4th October, 2007. Counsel for the petitioner points out that respondent/ plaintiff filed an application for amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, on 2nd January, 2008. Para 2 of the application reads that, the plaintiff could not make averments earlier in the suit only on account of inadvertence. Plaintiff now seeks 2 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. amendment to the suit, which are proposed as para 2-A, B, C, D and E. In para 3, Respondent/ plaintiff has reiterated that proposed amended pleading was not earlier made only on account of inadvertence. The pleadings now sought to be raised by way of amendment is only for elaboration of the contentions raised in the original plaint. Nature of the suit would not be changed, if amendment is allowed. Amendment is necessary for resolving the controversy among the parties. This application has been opposed by the present Petitioner/ defendant by filing reply in the trial Court. Annexure-F is the copy of the said reply. Counsel for the Petitioner read para 2 of Annexure-F. It has been stated in that para 2 that the defendant has filed written statement on 16th October, 2006, pointed out infirmities in the suit. Now the plaintiff is trying to fill in lacunae in the pleadings. Hearing of the suit was adjourned from time to time. Reason assigned by the plaintiff for amendment i.e. inadvertence is not accepted by the defendant. According to the defendant, the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable and, therefore, this amendment should be rejected. This reply is filed by 3 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. the defendant on 9th June, 2008. 2. Trial Court heard the parties, in para 6 referred the contentions raised. In the opinion of the trial Court, the amendment sought by the plaintiff pertains to acquisition of title by the plaintiff and mode thereof. Elaboration is made by the plaintiff in the proposed amendment. Trial Court opined that nature of the suit would remain as it is even if amendment is allowed. Trial Court was also of the opinion that, to resolve the controversy among the parties, amendment is necessary. 3. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the order impugned, in this writ petition. I have also considered the pleadings raised by the plaintiff in the suit, which is placed on record. The plaintiff, in para 1 of the plaint, has given description of the suit property. In para 3, the plaintiff has stated that one Mr. Rangnath Raut and Thakubai Raut were erstwhile owners of the property. Mr. Appa Eknath Raut and Limba Eknath Raut were two brothers. Appa died issueless. His widow also died. His share was inherited by daughter-in-law of Limba Eknath. Jagannath was son of Limba Eknath. 4 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. Thakubai was wife of Limba Eknath. I have also considered pleadings raised in paragraph 4 and 5. I have also considered the proposed amendment Para E. The controversy among the parties needs to be resolved finally. According to the learned counsel for the Petitioner, there is no reason assigned as to why the proposed pleadings were not the part of the suit. It is not the case that plaintiff did not assign any reason. As I have earlier referred in para 2 and 3, plaintiff has mentioned that the proposed amendment was not earlier pleaded on account of inadvertence. This reason assigned by the plaintiff has been considered by the trial Court, accepted and amendment is permitted. The suit is of 2006. In my view, the order impugned cannot be said to be perverse, to be interfered with under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. Writ petition stands dismissed in limine. No order as to costs. [S.B.DESHMUKH, J.] Dated:25/01/2010. ans/8809