1 W.P.8413.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 8413 OF 2010 Gajeram Shriram Ghule and others. ...PETITIONERS VERSUS Parvatibai W/o Sugrive Tandle, and others ...RESPONDENTS ... Mr.D.J.Choudhari,Advocate for petitioners. Mr.N.P.Bangar,Advocate for respondent Nos 1 to 4 ... CORAM: S.S. SHINDE, J. DATE : 20TH AUGUST, 2011 PER COURT : 1. This Writ Petition is filed challenging the order dated 26.07.2010, passed by the Civil Judge Junior Division, Kaij, District Beed, below Exh. 48, in RCS No.165 of 2005. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. Learned counsel appearing for the 2 W.P.8413.10 petitioners invited my attention to the contents of the application, which was filed at Exh. 48, in Regular Civil suit NO. 165 of 2005, and submitted that, by way of the said application and averments thereto, applicants/petitioners wanted to bring to the notice of the Court only clarification. It is further submitted that their main stand in the written statement was not changed or there was no attempt to change the said stand. However, application for amendment was filed so as to set at rest the controversy involved in the suit, therefore amendment should have been allowed by the trial Court. Learned counsel appearing for petitioners also invited my attention to the pleadings and grounds mentioned in the petition and Annexures thereto and submitted that to put an end to the controversy in the suit, the application for amendment should have been allowed. 3. Learned counsel appearing for respondents placed reliance on the reasoning recorded by the 3 W.P.8413.10 trial Court and submitted that application filed for amendment was at the stage when three witnesses of the plaintiffs were already examined, said application was filed at belated stage, therefore, it is rightly rejected by the trial Court. 4. I have given due consideration to the rival submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the order passed by the trial Court, Writ Petition and annexture thereto. On careful reading of the said application, it appears that no any due diligence has been shown in the said application, why the matter, which applicants wish to bring on record, by way of amendment was not brought in the original written statement. The matter which petitioners/applicants wanted to insert by amending the written statement was available even prior to filing of the written statement. Therefore, in absence of due diligence shown in the said application, the trial Court has rightly rejected the application observing that 4 W.P.8413.10 Apex Court has held that after commencement of the trial no application for amendment shall be allowed, unless due diligence is shown. Three witnesses of the plaintiffs were stepped into witness box and examined by the trial Court. There are also other reason assigned by the trial Court. The trial Court has considered all relevant factors and record while considering the application. In my opinion, no case is made out to interfere in this Writ Petition. Thus, the petition is devoid of merit, and same stands rejected. Sd/- [S.S. SHINDE, J.] MTK