1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.1987 OF 2010 Taramati W/o Ram @ Ramhari Kadam ..PETITIONER -VERSUS- The State of Maharashtra and others. ..RESPONDENTS ......... Mr.A.T.Ghute, advocate for petitioner. ........ (CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) DATE : 11 st August, 2010. PER COURT : 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner is the original plaintiff. He filed the amendment application when the suit was scheduled for final hearing and he also appeared for cross-examination. The trial Court found that the amendment is not necessary in view of the pleadings, which are already on record. The trial Court also noticed that the amendment application was filed after one year of the earlier amendment carried out by the plaintiff/petitioner. It was noticed that the petitioner did not seek such amendment when he had applied for the first time to get the plaint amended. The impugned order does not show any perversity or arbitrariness. For, the amendment was found unnecessary and application was filed when the suit was scheduled for cross-examination of the petitioner and his 2 witnesses. The trial Court may, however, consider grant of any alternate relief in view of the proposed amendment as per the provisions of Order 7 Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, if ultimately the petitioner will be able to prove his case. The Petition is disposed of accordingly. (V.R.KINGAONKAR) JUDGE gas/wp1987.10