1 WP 9361/10 abs FARAD CONTINUATION IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 9361 OF 2010 ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Orders Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's Orders None for the petitioners. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 9TH DECEMBER 2010 P.C. : 1. None present for the petitioners when called. 2. Perused the petition and the impugned order. 3. This petition is directed against an order dated 21st October 2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Satara, rejecting the application of the petitioners (original 2 WP 9361/10 defendants) for amendment of the written statement. 4. The issues were framed on 16th November 2006. The respondent­plaintiff filed affidavit of evidence in lieu of examination in chief at Exhibit­25. The petitioners and their advocate were absent. Hence, the Court passed “No W/S order” against them. Thereafter the plaintiff closed its evidence and filed pursis of closure at Exhibit­51. Despite adjournment being granted to the defendants for production of their evidence, the defendants remained absent and did not adduce any evidence. Hence, the Court closed the evidence of the defendants and posted the matter for arguments. Thereafter on 30th August 2010, the petitioners­defendants filed application for adjournment for arguments. Adjournment was granted. After few more dates, on 14th October 2010 the defendants made an application for amendment of the written statement. By the impugned 3 WP 9361/10 order, the application was rejected. 5. Proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure says that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of the trial. The petitioners have not shown that they could not have raised the matter which was sought to be raised by the amendment before the commencement of the trial. As such, there is no merit in the writ petition which is hereby rejected. 6. This order be communicated to the trial Court. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)