1 WP No.11533/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.11533 OF 2010 MANIK LAXMANDAS SHRISHRIMAL AND ANR VERSUS SARANGDHAR MURLIDHAR BAJAJ ... Advocate for Petitioners : Mr.Hiwrekar S.D. Respondents served ***** CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 5th DECEMBER,2011. PER COURT : 1) Heard Mr.Hiwrekar. Respondents, in spite of service, absent. 2) An application was moved in Special Civil Suit No.8/2006 by the petitioner in terms of order VI Rule 17 of CPC seeking permission to amend the pleadings. 3) The petitioner, as a defendant, desired to bring certain facts on record about rights of his sister and mother and about receiving so-called earnest or sale consideration by petitioner – Manik. The learned Civil Judge, Senior Division has verified the position and did not agree to the contentions raised by the defendant. 4) The facts, date-wise, again are important. An agreement is dated 24.12.2002. After the suit for specific performance, the defendant appeared and filed written statement below Exhibit-22 on 18.10.2006. He denied the entire transaction and claimed dismissal of the suit. Issues were framed at 2 WP No.11533/2010 Exhibit- 23 on 14.10.2006; oral evidence of plaintiff was completed on 18.8.2009, plaintiff closed evidence below Exh.71 on 18.8.2009 thereafter the matter was adjourned for evidence of defendants; Defendant no.2 – Manik filed his affidavit of deposition below Exhibit- 84 on 31.3.2010, it was adjourned for cross- examination and then impugned application at Exh.95. 5) Law does not contemplate to entertain such application moved under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC and after the stage of evidence. Consequently, I do not see any error on the part of learned Judge in rejecting the application Exh.95. 6) Writ petition lacks merit, dismissed. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE bdv/