1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 451 OF 2010 Krishnarao s/o Gangadhar Dokhe aged 41 years, occ. agri r/o Dongaon, Tq. Vaijapur Dist. Aurangabad. .. PETITIONER VERSUS Govind s/o Trimbak Gaikwad aged 48 years, occ. agri. & service r/o CIDCO, N-9, R-27, Room No. 105, Pratapnagar, Mhadanagar Colony Aurangabad. .. RESPONDENT Mr. R.L. Kute, Advocate holding for Mr. P.S. Dighe, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. C.D.Chavan, Advocate for the respondent. ===== CORAM : R. M. BORDE, J. DATE : 23rd MARCH, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1 Heard. 2 Rule. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken for final 2 disposal at admission stage. 3 Petitioner / original plaintiff plaintiff presented two applications at exh. 41D and 46D requesting the court to permit him to amend the plaint. Suit is presented by the plaintiff seeking decree of perpetual injunction against the defendant. It is not necessary to go into the factual details of the matter. Suffice is to note that the application presented by the plaintiff seeking amendment to the plaint was presented about four years after presentation of the suit. Trial court considering the rival contentions was pleased to reject both the applications. So far as application presented at exh. 46D is concerned, it covers the amendment as proposed by the plaintiff in application exh. 41D. If the application presented at exh. 46D is considered, it would suffice the purpose as the amendment sought to be incorporated by virtue of presentation of of second application is infact inclusive of the amendment as proposed in the earlier application. Trial court has rejected the application on the ground that the application is presented at late stage. 4 It is not controverted that the issues are framed in the matter and the suit is posted for evidence. Learned counsel for the respondent has 3 vehemently opposed the application on the ground that the application seeking amendment is presented by the plaintiff after framing of issues and as such, in view of proviso to Rule 17 Order 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the application need not be considered. 17 Amendment of pleadings - . The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties : . Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in site of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. 5 In the instant matter, the plaintiff by virtue of the proposed amendment wants to bring to the notice of the court certain developments which have occurred after presentation of the plaint. It is thus clear that inspite of exercise of due diligence also, amendment could not have been requested at earlier point of time. The developments which occurre after presentation of the plaint can be taken note of and can be made part of the pleadings by presenting application seeking amendment to the court and thee can be no impediment in considering such application. In the 4 instant matter, considering the nature of the amendment sought to be incorporated and considering the fact that the circumstances which are required to be brought on record are the happenings after presentation of the plaint, it cannot be said that there was no exercise of due diligence on the part of the plaintiff in approaching the court. There was no reason for the trial court to reject the application seeking amendment to the plaint. In this view of the matter, order passed by the trial court below exh. 46D on 27-11-2009 is liable to be quashed and set aside and the same is accordingly set aside. Application presented by the plaintiff / petitioner at exh. 46 D seeking amendment to the plaint shall be deemed to have been allowed. Respondent/ original defendant shall have liberty to present additional written statement controverting the contentions raised by the plaintiff. Trial court shall proceed to decide the controversy as early as possible in accordance with law. Rule is accordingly made absolute. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. ( R. M. BORDE, J.) dyb/office/wp451.10.odt