( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 200 OF 2010 Indumati w/o Jairam Vighne PETITIONER VERSUS Sunil Shripatrao Giram RESPONDENT .... Mr. Sanket Kulkarni, advocate holding for Mr. S.D. Kulkarni, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Darshan Kulkarni, advocate holding for Mr. R.N. Bharaswadkar, advocate for the respondent. .... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 18th June, 2010] PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Though learned advocate holding for Mr. Bharaswadkar sought adjournment, yet, the request is rejected and Mr. Bharaswadkar is absent. 2. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, it is amply clear that the amendment application is rejected because it was filed by the defendant after examination of the three (3) witnesses and closure of the evidence by the plaintiff. It is pertinent to notice that the amendment related to description of the suit property. The amendment ( 2 ) was likely to cause prejudice to the plaintiff because he had closed the evidence. Secondly, as per the proviso appended to Rule 17 of Order-VI of the Civil Procedure Code, there is legal bar in entertaining such application. The proviso reads as follows : “Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial.” In the present case, there is no material to infer that the defendant could not have understood proper description of the suit property before commencement of the trial. The trial commenced no sooner the issues are framed by the trial Court. In the present case, the trial had commenced much before the filing of the application. The plaintiff’s evidence was over and, therefore, rejection of the application was proper. No merits. The petition is dismissed. No costs. [V.R. KINGAONKAR] JUDGE NPJ/wp200-10