1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 3313/2011 (BEBIBAI SHRAWAN GEDAM VERSUS SAMPAT CHINDHU MESHRAM) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri A.K. Bangadkar, counsel for the petitioner. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : AUGUST 24, 2011 . Heard. The trial Court did not commit any error in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of the plaint. It is necessary to note that the plaintiff-petitioner had filed a suit for partition and separate possession. A written statement was filed by the respondent-defendant in the said suit and it was clearly pleaded by the respondent that he became the owner of the suit property in pursuance of a will executed in his favour on 03.05.1970. Though the written statement was filed on record, the petitioner-plaintiff did not make any efforts for amending the plaint and seeking a declaration that the will allegedly executed on 03.05.1970 was not a valid will and was liable to be set aside. The plaintiff examined herself. After the evidence of the plaintiff was closed and the defendant was being cross-examined, the petitioner filed the application for grant of permission to amend the plaint. 2 The trial Court rightly held that there was no diligence on the part of the plaintiff in moving the amendment application. The trial Court held that the petitioner could have filed an amendment application as soon as she became aware of the will dated 03.05.1970 on receiving the written statement. The reason stated by the petitioner for belatedly filing the amendment application that she was able to see the will only when the evidence was tendered by the defendant and, hence, she could challenge the same only thereafter, was rightly rejected by the trial Court as the trial Court observed that it was not necessary for the petitioner to see the will before raising a challenge to the validity of the same. The judgment reported in 2011(4) All M R 20 (Garware-Wall Ropes Ltd. Versus Shashikant Bhalchandra Garware & others) and relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be made applicable to the facts of this case. Since the order passed by the trial Court does not suffer from any infirmity, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE