SSK/ 1 WP/7254.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7254 OF 2011 Mr. Mohan Lokegaonkar ....Petitioner Versus Singh Arjun Ujla & Ors. ...Respondents Mr. D. B. Savant, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. I. R. Tripathi & Mr. N. R. Dubey i/b. Mr. C. K. Tripathi, Advocate for respondent no.1. CORAM : RANJIT MORE, J. DATED : 12th SEPTEMBER, 2011. P.C.: Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. The petition arises out of the proceedings of Election Petition No.27 of 2007 filed by respondent no.1 challenging the election of the petitioner as a Councillor to Bombay Municipal Corporation. Respondent No.1 examined 25 witnesses including himself. These witnesses have been cross examined by the petitioner. Respondent No.1 thereafter filed pursis on 14th July, 2011 for closing his evidence. On the very same day, the petitioner filed application at Exhibit “C” to the petition to amend his written statement. This application came to be rejected by order impugned in the writ petition on the following grounds: 1. The trial is already commenced, SSK/ 2 WP/7254.11 2. The proposed amendment is frivolous and irrelevant and 3. The application is in abuse of law. 3. The finding is recorded in para (5) of the impugned order that though, the application for amendment to the written statement is preferred by the petitioner on 14th July, 2011, the application is prepared way back on 8th March, 2010 and this is evident from the docket of the application. This finding is not disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner. The finding shows that the petitioner had an opportunity to prefer an application prior to the date of commencement of the trial. In this case, the trial has not only commenced, but respondent no.1’s evidence is also closed. The petitioner, could not make out case that inspite of due diligence, he could not have raised the matter before commencement of the trial. Taking overall view of the matter, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order especially when fresh elections are due in February, 2012. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at this stage, submits that the next date of hearing of the petition is tomorrow and it is not possible for him to file affidavit of evidence of the petitioner by tomorrow. He seeks some indulgence be granted to him in this regard. SSK/ 3 WP/7254.11 5. Learned counsel for respondent no.1 makes a statement that, in case, the petitioner seeks adjournment from the learned Trial Judge for a week, he will not oppose the same. The statement is accepted. (RANJIT MORE, J.)