R.M. Savant, J.

1. Rule, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties made returnable forthwith and heard.

2. The writ jurisdiction of this court is invoked against the order dated 23/4/2013 passed by the learned Ad hoc District Judge-2 Solapur by which order the Application (Exhibit 15) for amendment of the Appeal being Civil Appeal No. 325 of 2012 came to be allowed and resultantly, the Respondents herein were held entitled to amend the Appeal in terms of the amendment sought vide the said Application (Exhibit 15).

3. Shorn of unnecessary details, a few facts can be stated thus :-

The Petitioner herein is the original Plaintiff who had filed the suit in question being Special Civil Suit No. 110 of 2005 for a declaration that the Petitioner is the owner of the entire suit property, and for cancellation of the sale deed executed by the Defendant No. 2 i.e. the Respondent No. 1 herein who is his daughter in favour of the Defendant No. 4. i.e. the Respondent No. 2 herein. In the said suit counter claims came to be filed by both the Defendant No. 2 and the Defendant No. 4. In so far as the Defendant No. 2 is concerned, she claimed a declaration that she has got 1/4th share in the suit property, and in the alternative the suit property be partitioned. In so far as the Defendant No. 4 is concerned, she sought the relief of partition of the suit property pursuant to the sale deed executed by the Defendant No. 2 in her favour.

4. After going through the gamut of a trial, the suit in question came to be decreed by the Trial Court in favour of the Plaintiff by the judgment and order dated 31/3/2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Solapur. However, in so far as the counter claims of the Defendant No. 2 and the Defendant No. 4 are concerned, their counter claims came to be dismissed.

5. Aggrieved by the decreeing of the suit by the judgment and order dated 31/3/2007 the Defendant Nos.2 and 4 i.e. the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein filed an Appeal in this Court being First Appeal No. 2155 of 2007 challenging the said decree. In the context of the issue which arises in the present Petition, it is required to be noted that in Ground (B) of the memo of the First Appeal, the Respondents/Appellants have raised a challenge to the dismissal of the counter claims. There are other grounds in the Memo of Appeal which question the findings recorded on the issues which arise on account of the counter claims and which are concerning the Defendant Nos.2 and 4. It is not necessary to refer to the said grounds as the Ground (B) can be said to be an over imposing ground questioning the dismissal of the counter claims.

6. At this stage it is required to be noted that the adjudication is one and the finding recorded is in respect of the suit property by which the Trial Court has held that the title vests with the Plaintiff. After the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Court was enhanced pursuant to the amendment to the Bombay Civil Courts Act, the said First Appeal No. 2155 of 2007 was transferred to the District Court, Solapur. After the transfer of the said First Appeal to the District Court, Solapur, the Respondents/Appellants moved the instant Application (Exhibit 15) for amendment of the Appeal memo to add paragraph (iv) after paragraph (iii). In the said paragraph (iv) by way of prayer clause (a) the Appellants have prayed that the Appeal be allowed and by way of prayer clause (b) the Appellants have prayed for setting aside the judgment and order dated 31/3/2007, the suit be dismissed and the counter claims of the Defendant Nos.2 and the Defendant No. 4 may be allowed with costs throughout.

7. The said Application (Exhibit 15) was opposed to on behalf of the original Plaintiff i.e. the Petitioner herein by filing a Reply (Exhibit 16). In the said reply, the Plaintiff objected to the amendment sought on the ground that by way of amendment three Appeals were sought to be converted into one; that the issue of limitation