1 of 3 102-WP.8237.2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 102 WRIT PETITION NO. 8237 OF 2023 SHAIKH NOOR SHAIKH BASHU ALIAS BASHA AND ANOTHER VERSUS VISHNU PANDURANG MUNDE AND ANOTHER ... Mr. Ankush Nivrutti Nagargoje, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. Nilkanth P. Bangar, Advocate for Respondent No.1. ... CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. DATE : 4th MARCH 2026 P.C.:- 1. Heard learned Advocates for the respective parties. 2. By the present petition, the Petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 02.02.2023, passed below Exhibit-73 by the learned Joint Civil Judge Junior Division, Dharur, District Beed in R.C.S. No.31 of 2014, whereby the application filed by the Petitioner seeking amendment in the written statement came to be rejected. 3. The Respondent No.1/original plaintiff, filed R.C.S. No.31 of 2014 for declaration of ownership and perpetual injunction and rest of the suit land bearing No.21, admeasuring 12 Hector 40 Are to the extent of 3 Hectors situated at Thetegavhan, Taluka Dharur, District Beed. The petitioners filed a written statement, resisted the suit and denied the possession of Respondent No. 1/original plaintiff over the suit land. The evidence of both the parties was over and when the 2026:BHC-AUG:9636 2 of 3 102-WP.8237.2023 matter was posted for argument, due to pandemic COVID-19, the matter was adjourned from time to time. 4. In the month of April 2022 and June 2022, the respondent no. 1/original plaintiff filed an application before the Tahsildar and pursuant to that Revenue Authorities conducted Panchanama on 27.04.2022 and 22.06.2022, which clearly indicated that the respondent no. 1/original plaintiff was not in possession and, therefore, in view of the subsequent developments, the petitioners filed an application and sought amendment in a written statement. The said application was resisted by the respondent no. 1/original plaintiff contending that the evidence has been already recorded and the matter was posted for argument and there was no due diligence. After considering the application and the contention raised by the plaintiff- respondent No.1, learned Trial Court rejected the application. 5. After hearing the learned Advocates for the respective parties and after going through the application filed by the Petitioners, I find that though the evidence was over, the subsequent developments had occurred due to which the respondent no. 1/original plaintiff filed an application before the Revenue Authorities. Pursuant to that application Panchnama was carried out and accordingly, the Petitioners/Original Defendant No. 1 and 2 filed an application and sought amendment in a written statement and, therefore, the learned 3 of 3 102-WP.8237.2023 Trial Court ought not have rejected the said application. 6. Therefore, I am inclined to allow the writ petition by setting aside the impugned order passed by the Trial Court. 7. In view of the above, writ petition is allowed. The order dated 02.02.2023, passed below Exhibit-73 by the learned Joint Civil Judge Junior Division, Dharur, District Beed in R.C.S. No.31 of 2014 is quashed and set aside subject to payment of cost of Rs. 25,000/-. 8. The petitioner shall deposit the said amount in this Court within a period of two weeks from today, which shall be transmitted to the Shantivan, Bhavani Vidyarthi Kalyan Pratishthan, SBI Branch Shirur (Kasar), District Beed, A/c. No.33446000963, IFSC Code No.SBIN0005995. (SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.) Tauseef