gst 1 wp10.11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. WRIT PETITION NO. 10 OF 2011. M/s.M.M.Brothrs.. .... ..... ..... Petitioner. V/s The Chief Engineer, PWD, Pune & Anr. ..... .... Respondents. Mr.V.A.Shastry, Adv. For the petitioner. Ms.M.S.Bano, AGP for the respondents. CORAM: B.R. GAVAI, J. 1st April, 2011 PC: Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Taken up for hearing by consent. By way of present petition the petitioner challenges the order dated 4.12.2010 below Ex.42 thereby rejecting the application of the petitioner seeking permission to carry out the amendment which was allowed by order dated 17.1.2009. 2. Petitioner has filed a suit for recovery against respondent. Vide application below Ex.28 he filed an application for amendment of the plaint and the same was granted on 17.1.2009. Amendment was to be carried out within 10 days. Since the amendment was not carried till 10.6.2010 learned trial Court passed an order restraining the plaintiff from carrying out the amendment. As such an application aforesaid came to be filed but the same came to be rejected. Hence the present petition. 3. Mr. Shastri, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the amendment could not be carried out within stipulated period since at the relevant time the counsel then appearing had expired and thereafter his work was being looked after by his son and due to office pressure he could not carry gst 2 wp10.11.sxw out the amendment within stipulated period. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposes the petition on the ground that the plaintiff was not diligent enough in conducting his case and hence he is not entitled to equitable relief. 5. From the record it could be seen that one Manmath Sadashiv Athalye has filed an affidavit stating therein that one S.K.Athale was engaged as counsel who had passed away and office of the said advocate was under heavy pressure. It can thus be seen that it is on account of lapses in the office of the advocate engaged by the plaintiff the delay has occurred in carrying out the amendment. For a mistake of counsel party should not be made to suffer. In any case, the trial is yet to commence as such no prejudice would be caused to the respondent. Respondent can very well amend the written statement or file additional written statement. 6. In that view of the matter rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) subject to payment of costs quantified at Rs.10,000/-. Costs be paid over to Legal Aid Committee, Satara. Costs to be paid and amendment to be carried out within a period of four weeks from today.