1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No.4094/2011 Smt. Droupadi M. Kejdiwal and others Vs. Subhashchandra V. Mudholkar and others. =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Mr. C. A. Joshi, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. S. A. Mohta, Advocate for the respondent nos. 1 to 4. C ORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATED : 14 th NOVEMBER, 2011. Heard. The petitioners are the legal heirs of the original defendant. The suit was filed by the respondents against the husband of the petitioner no.1 and the father of the petitioner nos. 2 and 3 for eviction and possession. According to the respondents-landlords, the tenancy of original defendant Shri Manoharlal was terminated by the respondents and hence they were entitled to the relief of possession. The original defendant Manoharlal filed the written statement in the suit filed in the year 2003 on 19.6.2004. The plaintiff tendered his evidence on affidavit on 17.8.2004. Since Manoharlal expired during the pendency of 2 the suit, his legal heirs filed written statement on 19.2.2008. Thereafter, when the matter was fixed for evidence, the petitioners moved an application for amendment of the written statement. By the proposed amendment, the petitioners wanted to plead that the suit property was not leased to Manoharlal and was leased to the Hindu undivided family of which Manoharlal was the Karta. The petitioners also wanted to plead that a part of the suit premises belonged to the Government as the same was allotted by the Government to Manoharlal as the Karta of the Hindu undivided family. The Trial Court rightly rejected the amendment application, as the facts stated in the proposed amendment were well within the knowledge of the petitioner at the time of filing of the written statement on 19.2.2008. Moreover, the original defendant Manoharlal had not raised these pleas in the written statement filed in the year 2004. There was inordinate delay in filing the amendment application. The amendment application was filed after the trial had commenced and it appears that the same was filed merely with a view to protract the proceedings filed by the respondents for eviction of the petitioner from the tenanted premises. No fault 3 can be found with the order passed by the Trial Court rejecting the application for amendment of the written statement. So also, the Trial Court was justified in rejecting the review application. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. In the facts of the case, the Trial Court is directed to decide the suit as expeditiously as possible. JUDGE Ambulkar.