( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 951 OF 2010 Vasant Ramchandra Patil PETITIONER VERSUS Bhikan Sahebrao Patil & others RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. B.R. Warma, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Mukul Kulkarni, advocate for respondents No. 2 to 4. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 29th April, 2010] PER COURT : 1. The petition is filed against order dated 2nd January, 2010 whereby the trial Court rejected amendment application (Exh-97). It appears that composite prayers were made in the application. 2. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on consideration of the relevant reasons ascribed by the trial Court, it is amply clear that the amendment to the pleadings could not have been allowed when the evidence of the petitioner (plaintiff) is partly over and the trial is in the midst. Still, however, his request for addition of Sumanbai ( 2 ) Sahebrao Patil alias Sumanbai Gopichand Patil could have been considered because it was not a request for amendment of the pleadings. The trial Court should have examined whether she is or she is not a proper or necessary party. The contesting defendants had, in fact, raised objection that without joining her, the suit was not maintainable. The suit is for partition and as such, addition of such a party could be allowed in order to ensure effective and final adjudication of the suit. The trial Court seems to have overlooked the relevant provisions contained in Article 333 of the Hindu Law (By Mulla). 3. Under the circumstances, the petition is dismissed. However, the trial Court is directed to allow addition of the party and the dismissal of the petition be deemed as dismissal only in respect of the prayer for amendment of pleadings. The petitioner to serve newly added party within fifteen days by effecting personal service so that the trial would not be protracted. No costs. [V.R. KINGAONKAR] JUDGE NPJ/wp951-2010