1 1. FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.1258/2010. (Raju Chhaban Bhagat Vs. Sunita Bhimrao Newse and Ors.) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders. or directions and Registrar’s orders ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr.US Malte, Adv. for petitioner; Mr.Parag Barde, Adv. for Resp.Nos. 1 and 2; Mr.HU Dhage, Adv. for Resp.No.3. ___ CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL ,J. DATE : 30 th September, 2010. ... 1) Heard. 2) The original defendant no.2 feels aggrieved by allowing the amendment, below Exhibit-30 in Special Civil Suit No. 145/2008 by the learned 2nd Jt. Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmednagar by order dated 29/10/2009. 3) Basically, the petition seeks to bring on record three persons, who are allegedly purchasers of the property, disclosed in the Written Statement, bringing them as Defendant Nos. 6, 7 and 8. This need not be a spirit in terms of Order VI Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure and, particularly proviso thereof. The proper procedure could have been in terms of Order I Rule 10(2) 2 of CPC. That exercise is skipped, rather deliberately. The learned Judge, seized with the matter, did not adhere to this basic requirement. That apart, the application has come up after the issues are framed. Consequently, the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of Civil Procedure Code, would have its applicability in the lis. These aspects are missing in the application. No due diligence demonstrated to by-pass the proviso, the application to that extent lacs merits. 4) The technical corrections, as is indicated in paragraphs 2, 5, 6 and 7 of the application, could have been simply entertained, as they are in the nature of clerical or typographical errors in the plaint. 5) The amendment, allowing impleadment of Respondent Nos. 6, 7 and 8 is uncalled for and consequently, the order under challenge is set aside to that extent. 6) The learned Judge is allowed to entertain fresh application, if moved on its own merits. Plaintiff to carry amendment to the extent of paragraphs 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7 in the application (Exhibit-20). 7) Writ Petition disposed of. No costs. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE bdv/