1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 1735/2011 (Ravindra B. Verulkar & another VERSUS Sahebrao B. Raut & another) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri R.D. Wakode, counsel for the petitioners. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : APRIL 13 , 2011 . Heard. The trial Court was justified in rejecting the amendment application filed by the petitioners for amending the written statement. The trial Court rightly held that the petitioners had not satisfactorily explained as to why they had belatedly filed the amendment application after the commencement of the trial and they were prevented from filing the same before the commencement of the trial. In view of the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it was necessary for the petitioners to state in the amendment application that in spite of due diligence, the defendants-petitioners could not have moved the amendment application before the commencement of the trial. Since, in this case, the petitioners had filed the amendment application after the commencement of the trial and the proposed amendment was likely to change the nature of the suit, the trial Court rightly rejected the same. 2 The petition is devoid of merit and, hence, the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE