1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 130/2008 (Ramkrishna Gendaji Ingole vs. Sau.Chandrakalabai Shaligram Dhote and another) ====================================== Shri P.S.Patil, Adv. for the petitioner CORAM : Smt. Vasanti A. Naik, J. DATE : 13th OCTOBER, 2008 1. By this writ petition, the petitioner impugns the order passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Murtijapur on 12.11.2007, rejecting the amendment application filed by the petitioner for amendment of the written statement. 2. The petitioner had filed an application for amendment of the written statement on the ground that the facts stated in the proposed amendment came to the knowledge of the defendant at the time of filing of the amendment application. The application for permission to amend the written statement was filed on 13.09.2007. The Regular Civil Suit No. 71/2006 was adjourned to 15.10.2007. On 15.10.2007 the plaintiff filed reply to the amendment application. It was stated in the reply that the amendment would cause serious prejudice to the plaintiff. 2 3. The plaintiff had also stated in the reply that the proposed amendment was not necessary for deciding the lis between the parties and it would also change the nature of the suit. When the amendment application came up for hearing on 15.10.2007, the petitioner and his counsel remained absent. The plaintiff and his counsel were present. The amendment application was, therefore, rejected by the Trial Court on the ground that the petitioner was not interested in prosecuting the application. The order dated 12.11.2007 is impugned in the instant petition. 4. The only submission made on behalf of the petitioner is that the petitioner and his counsel were not aware that the matter was listed before the trial Court on 15.12.2007. The petitioner has rushed to this Court by filing a writ petition so as to invoke the extra ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India without availing the remedy available to the petitioner under the Code of Civil Procedure. The petitioner ought to have pointed out the reasons for his non appearance to the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Murtijapur, instead of filing the writ petition. 7. In this background, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. The petitioner 3 would, however, be at liberty to take appropriate steps for setting aside the order dated 12.11.2007, impugned in this petition. 8. It also appears that in pursuance of the order passed by this Court on 21.1.2008, the petitioner had deposited costs of Rs.2,000/- in this Court. Since the relief mentioned in the order dated 21.1.2008 is not granted to the petitioner, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the amount of Rs.2,000/- deposited by him in this Court. Order accordingly. JUDGE Rvjalit