1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.6152 OF 2011. _______________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | _______________________|_______________________________________ Mr.V.D.Gunale, advocate for the petitioner. CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 22.08.2011. 1. Heard. 2. The present petitioner is the original plaintiff who filed a suit for perpetual injunction. The defendants during the pendency of the suit, moved an application for amendment in the Written Statement. The trial Court allowed the said amendment application. The plaintiff has assailed the said order in the present Writ Petition. 3. Mr.Gunale, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the amendment sought is totally inconsistent with the documents on record. 2 The pleadings were filed in the year 1991, still,the amendment application was not made till the year 2011. No explanation is given for such an inordinate delay in fling the amendment application. According to the learned counsel, in the original written statement, the Respondent had admitted about the right of the plaintiff over 3 acres of the land and now by way of an amendment have stated that because of typographical mistake, it was mentioned as 3 acres instead of 2 acres 15 gunthas. The learned counsel further contended that the admission can not be retracted. The merits of the amendment are not required to be considered at the time of dealing with the amendment application. 4. With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have gone through the pleadings. The pleadings are prior to the amendment in 2001. Proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the C.P.C. is not attracted. It is also a settled law that amendment in the written statement has to be more liberally construed as is held in the case of "Baldev Singh and others Vs. Manohar Singh and another" 3 reported in (2006) 6 Supreme Court Cases 498. 5. The plaintiff has not yet led his evidence. The plaintiff will have an opportunity to rebut the case of the defendants. The trial Court has exercised its discretion in allowing the amendment. There is no error of jurisdiction on the part of the trial Court. 6. In light of that, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) Dt.22.08.2011. asp/office/wp6261.11 4