1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY : AURANGABAD BENCH WRIT PETITION NO. 7047 OF 2008 Vikas Ramchandrarao Dube and others. - - - Petitioner versus Prakash Ramchandrarao Dube- - - Respondents Shri Vivek Bhavthankar, Advocate for petitioner. Shri S. S. Choudhari, Advocate for respondent. CORAM : B. R. GAVAI, J. Dated : 6th October 2009 PER COURT: 1. By way of present petition, petitioner challenges the order dated 8-9-2008 passed by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Parli Vaijanath thereby allowing the application filed by respondent / plaintiff for amendment of the plaint. 2. Shri Bhavthankar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that the application for amendment 2 was filed after the issues are framed. He, therefore, submits that since after the issues are framed and the trial is said to have commenced, the application for amendment is not permissible. He relied of the judgment in the case of Ajendraprasadji N. Pande and another vs. Swami Keshavprakashdasji and others reported in A.I.R. 2007 S.C. 806. He further submits that after the amendment is allowed, it changes the nature of the plaint. 3. Shri S. S. Choudhari, learned Counsel vehemently opposed the petition. 4. No doubt, reliance placed by learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ajendraprasadji N. Pande and another is well placed, however, by now, it is a settled law that application for amendment after the trial commences cannot be allowed unless a party seeking amendment satisfies the condition that it could not bring the matter on record prior to commencement of trial in respect of exercising due diligence. However, in the case of Vidyabai and others vs. Padmalatha and another reported in [(2009) 2 SCC 409)] the Apex Court has held that the word 'trial' has to be given a wider meaning, framing of issues, recording of issues are some of the factors which are taken into consideration while determining the 3 question as to whether the trial has commenced or not. 5. In the present case, admittedly, plaintiff has entered the witness box. In that view of the matter, I find that the contention that the trial is commenced is without any merit. In that view of the matter, no infirmity is found in the approach adopted by learned trial Court. Hence, petition is rejected. ( B. R. GAVAI, J. ) pnk/wp704708