MP 1 WP4744_10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4744 OF 2010 Yashwant Ramchandra Gujar and others ... Petitioners Versus Shri Sunil Sampatrao Rajdev and another ... Respondents Mr. Uday P. Warunjikar for Petitioners. Mr. Vaibhav Patankar for Respondent No. 1. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. THURSDAY, MARCH 31, 2011 P. C. : Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2. By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 21st April 2010 vide which the application filed by the present petitioner for amendment of the written statement, came to be rejected. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Trial Court has grossly erred in rejecting the application for amendment inasmuch as the suit is filed prior to 1st July 2002, and as such, would not be governed by the amended provisions of Order 6, Rule 17. 4. Mr. Patankar, the learned Counsel for the respondent vehemently opposes the petition and submits that no interference is MP 2 WP4744_10 warranted. Admittedly, the suit is filed prior to 1st July 2002 and would not be governed by the amended provisions of Order 6, Rule 17. 5. It is settled law that the courts are required to take a liberal view on the grant of amendment. It is further settled that insofar as the written statements are concerned, the courts are required to be more liberal in grant of amendment. Perusal of paragraph 19(B) which is sought to be inserted reveals that the same pertains to the subsequent events that have taken place during the pendency of the suit. Insofar as paragraph 18(A) is concerned, the same is the amplification of the stand which is already taken in the written statement. 6. In that view of the matter, I am inclined to partly allow the petition. Insofar as the amendment to the effect which pertains to paragraph 18(A) and 19(B) is concerned, the same is allowed. However, this shall be subject to costs which are quantified to Rs. 5,000/- which would be deposited in the trial court within a period of four weeks from today. On deposit of the said amount, the respondents would be at liberty to withdraw the same. The deposit of costs is a condition precedent for allowing the petition. On failure to deposit the aforesaid costs, the petition shall stand rejected. 7. Rule made absolute in the aforesaid terms. (B.R. GAVAI, J)