1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1293 OF 2010 Umesh s/o. Trilokchand Thakkar ....Petitioner. Versus Sanjay s/o. Kamlakar Khardekar ....Respondent. Shri. L.V. Sangeet, Advocate for the petitioner. CORAM : R.M. BORDE, J. DATE : 5th April, 2010 PER COURT : 1. An application tendered by the plaintiff in Regular Civil Suit No. 479/1997, seeking amendment to the plaint, has been rejected by the Trial Court in view of order dated 5.1.2010, which is subjected to challenge in the writ petition presented under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. The plaintiff instituted suit, claiming decree of injunction against the respondent/defendant landlord. The suit presented in 1997 was allowed to proceed and same culminated in passing of decree by the Trial Court in favour of plaintiff on 10th May 2006. The defendant 2 preferred an appeal being Regular Civil Appeal No. 155/2006. The First Appellate Court allowed the appeal and remitted the matter back to the Trial Court only to remove certain technical deficiencies in recording evidence in the form of affidavit during the conduct of trial. Having regard to certain technical deficiencies, the matter was directed to be considered afresh by the Trial Court. The plaintiff presented an application seeking amendment to the plaint on 26.11.2009. The application was opposed by the respondent contending that the same is presented at belated stage and that the proposed amendment would change the nature of entitlement claimed by the plaintiff to remain in possession of the disputed property. The Trial Court, on consideration of the contentions raised by the respective counsel, was pleased to reject the application. 3. I have perused the application as well as the impugned order passed by the Trial Court. It is to be noted that the suit presented by the plaintiff in 1997 came to be decreed in 2006 and the First Appellate Court has remitted the matter back to the Trial Court for removal of certain technical deficiencies in the year 2009. The amendment is requested after about 12 years of the presentation of the suit. The plaintiff, in view of the proposed amendment, seeks to change his stance in respect of his capacity to continue to remain in possession of the suit property. There is no reason put forth as to what compelled the plaintiff to approach the Court at belated stage. It cannot be said that the plaintiff has approached 3 the Trial Court with due diligence and as such, the Trial Court was justified in turning down the application seeking amendment to plaint. In exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, no interference is called for. Petition stands rejected. [ R.M. BORDE, J. ] ssc/wp1293.10