1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 3530/2009 ( Sharad R. Shete and another -: versus :- Sou. Meenakshi P. Sawurkar and others ) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : NOVEMBER 13, 2 0 0 9. Heard Shri V.M. Deshpande, learned Counsel for petitioners. In Special Civil Suit no. 165/1999 the defendants moved application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which the trial Court has rejected on 16.06.2009, after noticing the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court reported at 2009 [1] All MR 471 (Vidyabai .vrs. Padmalatha ). Learned Counsel for petitioners argue that as the suit is of the year 1999, said judgment which considers amended provision of Order VI Rule 17 is not applicable at all. He further states that by amendment and by adding ground no.26, effort was to point out share of married daughter in the ancestral property, in the alternative and the Court below has found that such issue can be argued without amendment. He has relied upon judgments reported at (2007) 5 SCC 602 (Usha Balasaheb Swami and others .vrs. 2 Kiran Appaso Swami and others ) and AIR 2008 SC 2139 (North EasternRailway Administration .vrs. Bhagwan Das and others ), to urge that amendment can be allowed even at appellate stage and trial court has taken too technical view of the matter. With his assistance, I have perused the impugned order. Trial Court has found that application for amendment moved about 10 years, and there was no explanation therefor. It further found that the trial had already commenced and plaintiff was opposing prayer for amendment. It also found that some portion of proposed amendment were unnecessary as they were raising only question of law. It is apparent that the trial court could not have considered the amended provisions of Order VI Rule 17 in the matter. However, reasons given by it cannot be said to be wholly irrelevant for the purpose of deciding the amendment application. There is no jurisdictional error. As such no case is made out warranting interference in Writ Petition. The petitioners have got remedy of challenging the said order in appeal under section 96, if occasion therefor arise. Hence, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter. Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. JUDGE Rgd.