VISHNU PANDURANG PAWAR Vs. DROPADABAI SUBHASH PAWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed challenging the order passed below Exh. 55 in R.C.S. No. 273 of 2007 by the IInd Joint C.J.J.D. Georai.

(2.) The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that at any stage of the suit, the application for amendment of the plaint can be entertained and there is no bar to entertain the application. Learned Counsel further submitted that by way of said amendment there will be no change in the nature of the suit and no prejudice would be caused to the respondents herein. Learned Counsel further submitted that the said application was filed by the petitioner after evidence was recorded in R.C.S. No. 75 of 2004 and in that suit it has come on record that the husband of respondent No. 1 herein prior to marriage with respondent No. 1 got married with one Shakuntala d/o Baburao Chavan in the year 1970 and their marital relations were intact till 1977. According to the learned Counsel, the application was immediately filed after this fact came on record in R.C.S. No. 75 of 2004.

(3.) Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent invited my attention to the affidavit in reply filed by the respondent before the lower court. Learned Counsel submitted that on perusal of the application filed by the petitioner before the court below it is clear that the petitioner has not disclosed anything to contend that the petitioner was prevented by sufficient cause in not incorporating the said amendment at the time filing of suit. Learned Counsel submitted that the application is filed after framing issues and when the matter was posted for recording evidence. According to learned Counsel issues were framed in the matter in the month of April, 2008 and the application for amendment is filed in the month of September, 2008. According to the learned Counsel the matter was posted for recording evidence and therefore, when the trial was already commenced the trial court has rightly rejected the application. Learned Counsel further submitted that allowing application filed by the petitioner for amendment would change the nature of the suit and will cause prejudice to the respondent No. 1. Learned Counsel submitted that in other suit pending before the same court, the petitioner has already admitted relationship between respondent No. 1 and deceased Subhash Pawar and therefore, in case this amendment is allowed, this would cause great prejudice to the respondent and there would be question mark about relationship of respondent No. 1 and deceased Subhash. Therefore, counsel for respondent No. 1 submitted that the trial court has taken view which was possible view on the basis of the rival contentions and therefore, this Court may not interfere in writ jurisdiction. Learned Counsel invited my attention to the reasons recorded by the court below and submitted that the court has observed that this application is filed by the petitioner only to prolong the proceeding of the suit.