36-wp-12508-2019.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 12508 OF 2019 Smt. Prabhavatidevi Jangbahadur Singh and Anr … Petitioners vs. Shri Ramsevak Manekraj Singh Deceased(deleted) and Anr … Respondents Mr. Jitendra Damani for the Petitioners Mr. Ashutosh Kaushik a/w. Ms. Laxmi Mishra i/b. Kaushik and Co. for Respondent No.2/Orig. Plaintiff. CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J. DATED : 21st AUGUST 2026 ORDER: 1. This writ petition is filed by the original defendants to challenge the order passed by the trial court granting permission to amend the plaint. The application for amendment was made on the ground that during the pendency of the suit the plaintiff had applied for probate and the particulars were sought to be added in the plaint. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Page no. 1 of 3 varsha VARSHA VIJAY RAJGURU Digitally signed by VARSHA VIJAY RAJGURU Date: 2026.08.21 18:48:08 +0530 36-wp-12508-2019.doc application was filed after the cross examination of the first witness of the plaintiffs was commenced. Hence, in the absence of any valid reason for filing such an application after the commencement of trial, the amendment could have been allowed. He therefore submits that the impugned order would warrant interference by this Court. 3. I have perused the papers. During the stage of cross- examination of the plaintiffs’ witness, this application was filed. The amendment sought to be added is regarding the event occurred after filing of the suit. The suit is filed for possession. Hence, there is no benefit to the plaintiffs by filing an application at the stage of trial with an intention to delay the trial. So far as the defendants is concerned, it is always open for the defendants to file an additional written statement in response to the proposed amendment. The trial court has considered all these aspects before permitting amendment to the plaint. No prejudice is caused to the defendants. 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the reasons recorded in the impugned order, I do not find any ground to exercise discretionary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to interfere with the impugned order. 5. The writ petition is dismissed. Page no. 2 of 3 36-wp-12508-2019.doc 6. The petitioners i.e. the defendants, are at liberty to file the additional written statement if not yet filed in response to the amended plaint. The written statement, if any, shall be filed within six weeks from today. 7. The writ petition is dismissed. 8. The suit is of 2007. Hence, the parties shall cooperate for early disposal of the suit without seeking any unnecessary adjournments. (GAURI GODSE, J.) Page no. 3 of 3