1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 3984/2011 (MUNICIPAL COUNCIL BULDANA VERSUS STATE OF MAH. & OTHERS) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri Abhay Sambre, counsel for the petitioner. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : AUGUST 18, 2011 . By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order passed by the reference Court on 12.07.2011 rejecting an application filed by the petitioner for amendment of written statement. The petitioner is an acquiring body. After the evidence of the parties was tendered, the petitioner desired to amend the written statement so as to point out that the sale- deed mentioned in the proposed amendment was executed after the Section 4 notification and the plot number was also not mentioned in the sale-deed. The trial Court, however, rejected the amendment application on the ground that the amendment application could not have been granted at a belated stage after the evidence of the parties was tendered. There is nothing wrong with the approach of the reference Court in rejecting the application at the belated stage when the parties had tendered their oral evidence. 2 The only apprehension expressed on behalf of the petitioner is that the petitioner may not be permitted to make its submissions on the basis of the facts stated in the proposed amendment in case the permission is refused, is not well founded and is liable to be rejected as in the proposed amendment, the petitioner merely seeks to state that the sale- deed is effected after issuance of Section 4 notification and the demarcation and the plot number is not mentioned in the sale-deed and these facts can always be brought to the notice of the Court while advancing the arguments in the land acquisition case. Since the proposed amendment does not relate to the material facts, which need to be pleaded and relates to the evidence and the submissions, which are required to be made by a party, the petitioner would be entitled to make those submissions before the reference Court at the time of hearing. Hence, it is not necessary to interfere with the impugned order dated 12.07.2011 merely because the petitioner apprehends that it would not be permitted to make any submission on the facts stated in the proposed amendment. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE