1 wp1132.11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Writ Petition No. 1132 of 2011 Poovappa Tyampu Bangera ... Petitioner v/s. Leelavati Venkappa Bangera ... Respondent Mr. Vinay Hegde for the petitioner. Mr. Anil C. Singh i/b. D.R. Shah for the respondent. CORAM:- B.R. GAVAI, J. DATED :- MARCH 08, 2011. P.C. By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the concurrent orders vide which the application filed by the respondent-plaintiff for amendment of the plaint has been allowed vide orders dated 22nd July, 2010 and order passed by the Revisional Court dated 10th December, 2010 vide which the revision filed by the present petitioner has been rejected. 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that since the two suits are clubbed together and since in the other suit filed by the present 2 wp1132.11.sxw petitioner, the plaintiff has already filed an affidavit in lieu of examination- in-chief and is under cross-examination, the amendment could not have been allowed in the present suit. He further submits that as soon as the issues are framed in the present suit, the trial has commenced and as such amendment could not have been granted. 3. Admittedly, in the present case, only issues are framed. The affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief is yet to be filed. 4. In that view of the matter, in view of the Judgment in the case of Vidyabai v/s. Padmalatha, in my view the trial is yet to commence. Since the trial is yet to commence, the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC would not be applicable. In that view of the matter, no case is made out for interference in concurrent orders. 5. Petition is, therefore, rejected. (B.R. GAVAI, J)