When court can allow amendment of written statement at belated stage?

  The   learned 

counsel states that he opposes this amendment since the order on 
the application for Succession Certificate was passed in the year 
1995 when the suit was very much pending and therefore, that 
amendment   could   have   carried   out   at   that   time.       The   learned 
counsel   for   the   appellant   points   out   that   the   appellant   did   not 
hastily carry out this amendment because after the decision of the 
Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) in the application for Succession Certificate, 

the plaintiff questioned that decision before the High Court and 
the judgment of the High Court came in the year 2008 after the 
suit   was   decided   and   during   the   pendency   of   the   appeal. 
Therefore,   it   cannot   be   said   that   even   this   amendment   was   an 
after   thought   or   was   sought   to   be   made   to   protract   the 
proceedings.       In   view   of   this,   the   order   impugned   cannot   be 
sustained.

BENCH  AT NAGPUR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF  BOMBAY
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.81 OF 2013 IN WRIT PETITION 

NO.98 /2013 (D) 
  Digambar s/o Maroti Amle,
                                
..VERSUS  

   Shantabai Ramkrushna Girhe,
                              
                                              CORAM: R.C.CHAVAN AND
                                                           PRASANNA B.VARALE, JJ.
                                            DATED : 4th APRIL, 2013.
Citation; 2014(5) MHLJ 83

Heard.
2. Admit.
3. By consent, taken up for final hearing.

1. 
4.
The learned counsel for the respondent ­  Ori.plaintiff states 
that he has no objection to the amendment proposed in para no.4 
of the amendment application, whereby name of Ramdas Maroti 
Amle is sought to be added as a necessary party to the suit.   In 
fact, the Hon’ble Single Judge had dealt with only this aspect of 
the   amendment   application   and   since   the   respondent   himself 
concedes to the necessity of such amendment, the order to that 
extent would have to go.   The learned counsel for the respondent, 
however, has objection to the amendment whereby the result of a 
case of grant of Succession Certificate is sought to be pleaded at 
the   end   of   para   no.19   of   the   written   statement.       The   learned 

counsel states that he opposes this amendment since the order on 
the application for Succession Certificate was passed in the year 
1995 when the suit was very much pending and therefore, that 
amendment   could   have   carried   out   at   that   time.       The   learned 
counsel   for   the   appellant   points   out   that   the   appellant   did   not 
hastily carry out this amendment because after the decision of the 
Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) in the application for Succession Certificate, 

the plaintiff questioned that decision before the High Court and 
the judgment of the High Court came in the year 2008 after the 
suit   was   decided   and   during   the   pendency   of   the   appeal. 
Therefore,   it   cannot   be   said   that   even   this   amendment   was   an 
after   thought   or   was   sought   to   be   made   to   protract   the 
proceedings.       In   view   of   this,   the   order   impugned   cannot   be 
sustained.   The order is, therefore, set aside and the writ petition 
No.98 of  2013 is allowed setting  aside  the  order  passed by the 
District   Judge   rejecting   the   application   for   amendment.     That 
application Exh.16, in RCA No. 16 of 2005 is allowed.
Letters Patent Appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Print Page