1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5221 OF 2009 _______________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office } Memoranda of Coram, } Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's } orders or directions } and Registrar's orders } ___________________________}___________________________________ Mr.S.R.Sable, Counsel for Petitioner .......................... [ CORAM : K.K. TATED, J. ] DATE : 11th AUGUST,2009 1. Heard Mr. S.R. Sable, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Petitioner. 2. The present Petition is preferred by original defendant no. 2 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the Order dated 15/7/2009 passed by the 2nd Jt. Civil Judge (J.D.), Majalgaon below Exh. 41 in R.C.S. No. 119 of 2007. Petitioner preferred application under Order VI rule 17 of 2 the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of his Written Statement. 3. In the present case, Respondent no. 1/original plaintiff filed Suit for declaration of ownership and permanent injunction on 11/6/2007. Thereafter the petitioner filed his Written Statement on 27/7/2007. Then the Respondent no. 1/original plaintiff filed her affidavit of evidence also. Thereafter the petitioner preferred application for amendment of his Written Statement by adding fraud committed by Respondent no. 1. The said amendment application below Exh. 41 is dismissed by the trial court on the ground that evidence of Respondent no. 1/original plaintiff is over. Petitioner in his Written Statement nowhere raised objection about fraud. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner relied on Judgment in the matter of Baldev Singh and others V/s Manohar Singh 3 and another reported in 2006 (5) Mh. L.J. - 634. In this case, the Apex Court held that, " In the case of amendment of Written Statement, the Courts are inclined to be more liberal in allowing amendment of Written Statement than of plaint. " 4. But, in the present case, evidence of Respondent no. 1/original plaintiff is over and, therefore, in view of the Apex Court Judgment in the matter of Vidyabai & Ors. V/s Padmalatha & Anr. reported in 2009 (1) All Maharashtra Reporter - 471, it is not possible to accept the contention raised by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner. The head note in the matter of Vidyabai V/s Padmalatha & Anr. (Supra) reads as under : 4 " Civil P.C. (1908), O.6,R.17 – Proviso (As inserted in 2002) – Application for amendment of written statement – Not allowed after commencement of trial - Issues framed and affidavit in view of examination-in-chief of witness filed – Would amount to commencement of proceeding – Court will have no jurisdiction at all to allow amendment. " 5. Considering the above facts and circumstances in the present case, I do not find any substance in the present Writ Petition and the same is dismissed summarily. [ K.K. TATED, J. ] knp/WP5221.09