(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 10291 OF 2010 The Jalgaon District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Taluka & District : Jalgaon (Through Its Manager, Pramod s/o. Bhimrao More, Age : 57 years, Occupation : Service, Manager, Non-Agriculture Dept., R/o. Jalgaon, Taluka & District : Jalgaon). .. Petitioner. versus 1. M/s. Mahadu Nago And Brothers Partnership Firm through Partner, Shri Mahadu Nago Chaudhary, Age : 78 years, Occupation : Business, R/o. Kusumba, Taluka & District : Dhule. 2. Lasur Upasa Jal-Sinchan Yojana, Lasur, Taluka : Chopada, District : Jalgaon, through Liquidator, Lasur Upasa Jal-Sinchan Yojana, Taluka : Chopada, Dist. Jalgaon. 3. M/s. Borase Patil Associates Consulting, Deopur, Dhule. .. Respondents. (2) ....................... Mr. Rahul S. Pawar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. V.D. Hon, Advocate, for respondent no.1. Respondent no.2 served (Absent). ........................ CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 6TH JANUARY 2011 COURT'S ORDER : 1. Challenge is to the order rejecting prayer for amendment of written statement, moved by the petitioner Bank, after the trial had started. The suit is of the year 2004 and has been instituted by respondent no.1 for recovery of payments due to him in respect of works executed by a Firm. The works were executed for respondent no.2 / Government agency. 2. During the pendency of suit, the other partners of respondent no.1 filed application for getting themselves impleaded, contending that they are also having share. That application was rejected. The rejection has been upheld by this Court. Because of that defence, the petitioner / Bank moved (3) application for amendment of written statement vide Exhibit 225. The application states that some documents are filed before the court which indicate that the plaintiff / Firm has been dissolved from 1-11-1992 and the documents are issued by the competent authority. The trial court has rejected that application after noticing that trial had already commenced and the petitioner / Bank has not acted with due diligence. 3. Mr. R.S. Pawar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner / Bank, has attempted to demonstrate that the other partners came before the trial court in June 2009 and within three months thereof, the Bank has sought amendment. 4. According to Mr. V.D. Hon, learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.1, after the efforts of partners to delay the adjudication of Civil Suit failed, the application for amendment came to be filed. 5. I do not find it necessary to interfere in the matter, in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The facts showing, whether respondent no.1 / Firm was, or was not, in existence in 2004, are already on record of the trial court and hence no prejudice is caused to the petitioner by rejecting the prayer for amendment. (4) 6. In the result, Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Needless to mention, that the ad interim relief, granted earlier, stands vacated. ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp10291