1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3476 OF 2010 Sonubai Pandurang Raut & Anr. .. Petitioners versus Laxman Shankar Wagh @ Mali & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.Vinod Jadhav for the petitioners. Mr.Vijay Killedar i/by Mr.Nitin Jamdar for the respondents. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 30th April 2010. P.C.: . Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. The petitioners are the original defendant Nos.1a and 1b. The petitioners filed written statement before the trial Court at Exhibit 105. The written statement was filed on 24th April 2002. The suit was decreed on 2nd May 2008. An appeal was preferred by one of the defendants before the District Court on 5th August 2008. In the said appeal present petitioners made an application on 8th March 2010 contending that the written statement filed with the trial Court on 24th April 2002 is not their written statement as they have not filed any written statement. It is contended that the thumb impressions of the petitioners have been obtained by deceiving them. It is contended that written statement has been prepared on the basis of thumb impressions of the petitioners obtained on blank papers. Therefore, a prayer was made for rejecting the earlier written statement and for taking written statement on 2 record which was tendered alongwith the said application. By the impugned order, the said application has been rejected. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that on the face of it, the written statement shows that the thumb impressions were obtained on blank papers and thereafter certain material has been typed on the blank papers. He submitted that there are circumstances on record to show that the written statement could not have been filed by the petitioners. Lastly, he submitted that there was a prayer made for grant of permission to amend the written statement which has not been considered. 3. I have considered the submissions. The written statement of the petitioners was filed on record at Exhibit 105 on 24th April 2002. Thereafter, the suit proceeded which was decreed on 2nd May 2008. One of the defendants preferred an appeal on 5th July 2008 in which the present application has been made by the petitioners in January 2010. The petitioners are not disputing the thumb impressions appearing on the written statement. Now the petitioners want to contend that it is not their written statement as their thumb impressions were obtained by deceiving them. It is too late in the day to raise such a contention. There is no explanation whatsoever as to why such application was not made earlier during the pendency of the suit. Therefore, no fault can be found in the impugned order by which the said application was rejected. 4. The second grievance of the learned counsel appearing for the 3 petitioner has no merit. Though in the title of the application it is stated that application was for amendment of written statement, the prayer is for rejecting the earlier written statement and for taking fresh written statement on record. Such a prayer could not have been granted. There is no specific prayer seeking amendment of the written statement. The application does not contain the text of the proposed amendment. 5. At this stage, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioners may be permitted to apply for amendment of the written statement. 6. Writ petition is rejected. Rejection of the writ petition will not prevent the petitioners from making the application for amendment of the written statement. All contentions of the parties on such application are kept open. (A.S.OKA,J)