1 WP No.5853/10 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.5853 of 2010 Dr.Dattajirao Balakrishna Nikam ... Petitioner versus Mr.Balasaheb @ Balakrishna Govindrao Khore-Inamdar ... Respondent ... Mrs.Chandana Salgaocar Radia for the petitioner. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATED : 6th August 2010 P.C. 1. By this petition, petitioner challenges the order dated 20 August 2009 passed by the trial Court rejecting the petitioner’s application for amendment of the plaint and order passed by the revisional court rejecting the revision petition filed by the petitioner. 2. In my view, writ petition deserves to be rejected on the grounds more than one. In his suit, petitioner filed an affidavit in lieu of examination in chief on 2 March 2009 and after his cross examination was completed, he made an application for amendment of the plaint. 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 2 WP No.5853/10 the Court comes to the conclusion that inspite of due diligence, party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of the trial Court. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that amendment became necessary because during the course of cross examination petitioner plaintiff was contradicted by showing him a certified copy of the written statement filed by him in another suit. Therefore, amendment ought to have been allowed. Petitioner was aware of other suit filed against him and was also aware of the written statement filed by him in the previous suit. It therefore cannot be said that inspite of due diligence he was not aware of the facts which were already stated by him in the written statement filed in another suit. Petitioner ought to have shown due diligence of making the application for amendment before the commencement of the trial. The application was therefore rightly rejected. 3. The petitioner had challenged the order by filing a revision application before the Division Bench of Small Causes Court. A Division Bench of this Court has already taken a view that no revision lies against a procedural order u/s.29(3) of the Bombay Rent Act and a Single Judge of this Court has taken a view that the same position applies in respect of a revision against a procedural order u/s.34(4) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act. Granting or rejection of an application for amendment is a procedural order and as such, revision application itself was not maintainable. Revision Court therefore committed no error in rejecting the application for amendment as it was not maintainable. Writ Petition is rejected summarily. (D.G. KARNIK,J.)