1 WP 3901......2011 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3901 OF 2011 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3906 OF 2011 Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Mr. P.N.Kutti ,Advocate for the Petitioner. .......................... CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 09/06/2011 PER COURT : 1. The present petitioner is the original plaintiff. He had instituted a Suit for cancellation of sale deed and for declaration. During the pendency of the Suit, the defendant moved an application for amendment in August, 2009. Vide the said amendment application, the defendants seeks to bring on record the events i.e. the compromise in earlier Suit, in which the plaintiff was party which had taken place on 9/7/2008, the execution of Bharna pawti in the year 2008 and other factual matrix. The said application was opposed by the present petitioner. The trial Court allowed the said amendment application. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has filed the 2 WP 3901......2011 present Writ Petitions. 2. Mr. Kutti, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Court below has not taken into consideration the proviso to Rule 17 of Order VI of the Code of Civil Procedure. The defendants had not shown due diligence in filing the said amendment application. According to the learned counsel, no reasons are given for not filing the amendment application earlier. Once hearing takes place, the defendants can not maintain the application for amendment unless due diligence is made out. In the present case, the same is lacking. The learned counsel further contends that the factual matrix which is sought to be incorporated by amendment, is absolutely false and frivolous and the same has been denied. The said amendment is not necessary and relevant. 3. The Suit is filed in the year 2003. Earlier, there was one more Suit i.e. Spl. C.S. No. 167 of 2001, which was filed and pending. In the said Suit, the compromise has taken place on 21/7/2008. The said fact is being sought to be introduced by way of amendment, so also, the execution of Bharna pawti. It is a trite law that the merits of the amendment are not to be considered at the time of deciding the application. The 3 WP 3901......2011 amendment was sought in the Written Statement. The Courts are more liberal to allow the amendment in the Written Statement than that of the plaint as the defendants are permitted to plead alternate defences as has been held by the Apex Court in the case of Baldevsingh & Others V/s Manoharsingh and another 2006 ( 6 ) SCC 498. 4. The petitioner would have an opportunity to disprove the contentions raised by the defendants by way of amendment if the same are proved. 5. More over, the said amendment application has been allowed in August, 2009. The petitioners in fact had accepted the said order by not challenging the same for long slumber. The present Writ Petitions are filed only in the month of January, 2011. The writ jurisdiction is an equitable jurisdiction. Even on the ground of latches, the Writ Petition does not deserve to be entertained. 6. For all the above reasons, the Writ Petitions are dismissed, however with no order as to costs. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J. ] KNP/WP 3901.......2011 4 WP 3901......2011