1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 1392 OF 2010. (Shewantabai R. Sapdhare -: versus :- Dr. Rajendra H. Bedmutha ) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : JULY 06, 2010. Heard Shri N.B. Kalwaghe, learned Counsel for petitioner / original defendant and Shri V.M. Deshpande, learned counsel for respondent / plaintiff. Contention is that the respondent / plaintiff could not have been permitted to file any rejoinder by taking recourse to Order VIII Rule 9 of Code of Civil Procedure, only because the amendment to written statement has been allowed. He further states that because of that amendment to written statement, respondent filed an independent application under Order VI Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure and sought leave to amend his plaint, which has been already granted. That order granting amendment to 2 plaint is not in question. According to the learned counsel the impugned order passed on an application Under Order VIII Rule 9 (Exh.125) is unsustainable. He has invited attention of the Court to the interpretation of provisions of Rule 9 by the learned trial Court to urge that it shows total non- application of mind. Shri Deshpande, learned counsel is supporting the impugned order. According to him, because of the amendment to written statement moved when final arguments in Civil Suit were practically completed more than half, the amendment to plaint and a rejoinder was necessary. He further states that even if the rejoinder is read as amendment under Order VI Rule 17, the respondent plaintiff has no objection. It appears that when the arguments were being heard and respondent / plaintiff completed his side, the present petitioner moved application and amended his written statement to incorporate a plea that some third person was owner of the property and that third person inducted petitioner in the property. Because of this plea, the respondent / plaintiff incorporated a plea of denial of title on that account and for that purpose moved two applications vide under Order VI Rule 17 and another under Order VIII 3 Rule 9 of Code of Civil Procedure. It is clear that the purpose of both the applications was to meet the amendment allowed in written statement. The learned counsel for petitioner states that a leave to amend plaint consequentially could have been given to the respondent, and respondent can move an independent application even now for that purpose. In view of my finding that facts which needed to be brought on record because of subsequent amendment to the written statement are allowed to come on record by the trial Court by the impugned order. I do not find any substance in the contentions that the order has been passed under wrong provision. Writ Petition is therefore dismissed, with no order as to costs. JUDGE Rgd.