2207wp3446.11.odt 1 THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.3446 of 2011. Sheshrao Haribhau Dhole ..vs.. Smt.Kusum D.Gurao and ors. ............................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ............................................................................................................................................................... Mr. S.M.Ghodeswar, Adv. for the petitioner. CORAM : R.M.SAVANT, J. DATED : 22nd July, 2011. 1. The above petition takes exception to the order dated 4/3/2011 passed by the learned District Judge-8, Nagpur, by which order the Revision Application filed by the petitioner against the order dated 23/2/2010 passed by the Trial Court came to be rejected. 2. The petitioner, who is the defendant in Reg.Civil Suit No.390 of 2007 had filed an application for amendment of the written Statement, Exh.61 which came to be rejected by the Trial Court on the ground that the same was filed after the trial had commenced. The Trial Court had also rejected it on the ground that the petitioner had not satisfied the test of due diligence, as on an earlier occasion also the petitioner had moved an application for an amendment which was allowed by which Para Nos. 2-A, 2-B and 9- A were allowed to be added in the written statement. The Trial Court, therefore, rejected the said application. 3. Aggrieved by the rejection of the application by the Trial Court by order dated 23/2/2010, the petitioner filed a Revision 2207wp3446.11.odt 2 before the District Court which, as indicated above, came to be rejected by the impugned order dated 4/3/2011. As such the Appellate Court has confirmed the findings of the Trial Court in so far as the delay and due diligence aspect is concerned. The Appellate Court has also observed that the petitioner has not satisfactorily explained as to why on the earlier occasion when the application was filed for amendment, the said facts could not be brought on record. In my view, the reasons cited by both the courts below are unexceptional while rejecting the application for amendment. Hence, no interference is called for. Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. JUDGE chute