1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 1336 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. WRIT PETITION NO.: 1336 OF 2011 *** 1. Heard Advocate Mr. S. V. Chandole holding for Advocate Mr. V. G. Sakolkar for the Petitioner. 2. In a suit filed for specific performance, Respondent/ plaintiffs filed their affidavit of examination in chief and thereafter filed an application for amendment under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.Code to point out receipt of one cheque back by them, payment of that amount in cash and then payment of additional amount by two cheques on 29th May, 2009. The trial Court has by impugned order allowed that amendment after noticing that amendment does not alter the nature of the suit and Court has unfettered discretion in the matter. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that amendment was moved belatedly and was in relation to facts 2 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 1336 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. already within knowledge. Hence, after commencement of trial it could not have been allowed. Learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 has supported the impugned order. According to him, the receipt of subsequent cheques is already accepted by petitioners in their written statement and hence amendment does not in any way cause prejudice to them. 3. After perusal of the amendment as moved it is apparent that a different story is sought to be pressed into service by the Respondent/ plaintiffs. The plaintiff No.1 has described himself as doctor and both the plaintiffs appear to be in service. Reason given for moving amendment application belatedly is change of advocate. 4. The trial Court has not recorded any reason about justness or sufficient-ness of such a reason for sustaining the application. 5. I find the reason insufficient to 3 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 1336 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. explain the delay. The facts were already within knowledge. The petitioner/ plaintiffs are educated persons and hence change of Advocate by itself cannot be the reason. Impugned order dated 6th December, 2010 is, therefore, quashed and set aside. The proceeding in Special Civil Suit No.1 of 2010 to continue. 6. Rule made absolute accordingly. Stay stands vacated. No costs. [B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J.] Dated:20/04/2011. ans/1336