WP 11514/10 1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 11451 OF 2010 ( Narayan s/o. Damu Shinde Vs. Arjun Bhagoji Shinde ) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders Mr. A.R. Kale h/f. Mr. S.V. Natu, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. N.S. Jaju, Advocate for respondent. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : 24th February, 2011. PER COURT : 1. Heard Advocate Shri. A.R. Kale holding for Shri. Natu for the petitioner, Advocate Jaju for the respondent. 2. Contention of Shri. Kale is facts allowed to be added as subsequent are really not subsequent and were within knowledge of the petitioner/plaintiff at the time of institution of the suit. It is further urged that in any case, application could have been moved before commencement of recording of evidence and grant of such prayer at this stage when recording of evidence of petitioner/defendant is going on is not permitted by order 6, Rule 17, Civil Procedure Code. His contention is, such amendment has been moved only with a view to reopen the matter again by respondent/plaintiff. 3. Shri. Jaju, on the other hand, states that the various challenges raised by parties before revenue authorities are WP 11514/10 2 only brought up on record by amendment and it does not cause any prejudice to the petitioner. He further states that there is no effort to reopen the evidence as is sought to be urged. 4. By proposed amendment facts of filing application in relation to matter before S.D.O., Ahmadnagar, its decision, filing of appeal against it, a second appeal before Additional Commissioner and then a revision before the Hon'ble Minister are only placed on record. How these facts prejudice the cause or defence of present petitioner has not been explained. It is apparent that by quoting such facts it cannot be said that respondent/plaintiff is attempting to reopen the evidence. If such effort is made, petitioner can raise objection and the Trial Court is also competent to pass appropriate orders in that respect. As I do not find any prejudice caused to the petitioner, I am not inclined to interfere. Petition is rejected. [ B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. ] ssc/wp11451.10