1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 4424/2010 (Dharmendra D. Malviya VERSUS Ashok C.M. Mishra & others) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri B.N. Mohta, counsel for the petitioner. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : JANUARY 19 , 2011 . By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order passed by the trial Court on 05.07.2010 rejecting an application filed by the petitioner for amendment of the written statement. The petitioner is the original defendant no.2. A suit was instituted by the plaintiff-respondent no.1 for specific performance of contract dated 06.12.2004 and for possession of the suit property. The defendant no.1 denied the claim of the plaintiff and also pleaded that the alleged agreement of sale required registration and it could not be read in evidence. The petitioner-the defendant no.2, had not filed the written statement and an order of ‘No Written Statement’ was passed against the petitioner. The petitioner sought permission of the Court to file the written statement on record and the Court permitted the petitioner to do so. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking permission to amend the written statement filed on 25.02.2010 so as to incorporate a legal plea that the agreement of sale was 2 compulsorily registrable as it refers to the delivery of possession of the property and since it was not registered, it could not be read in evidence. The plaintiff strongly opposed the application filed by the petitioner-defendant no.2 and the trial Court, by the impugned order dated 05.07.2010 rejected the application filed by the petitioner. On hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the amendment application and the impugned order, it appears that the trial Court had rightly rejected the application filed by the petitioner for amendment of the written statement. The trial Court rightly held that by the proposed amendment, the petitioner was pleading the law, which was allegedly applicable to the facts of the case. The trial Court held that the amendment was sought by the defendant no.2 merely with a view to protract the proceedings. The trial Court further observed that the question of law could have been very well raised by the petitioner though there was no pleading in regard to the same. The trial Court was justified in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for amendment of the written statement. The writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE