*1* IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.9255/2009 Jitendra Prakash Joshi. ..Petitioner -VERSUS- Balu Devram Daine and others. ..Respondents ............... Mr.S.J.Rairkar, Advocate for the Petitioner. ............... CORAM: A.P. DESHPANDE, J. Dated 18th November, 2009. PC:- 1 After recording of evidence of the Plaintiff so also the Defendants Nos.1 and 2, when the matter was fixed for recording of evidence of the Defendant No.3, the Defendant No.3 did not lead any evidence and the Petitioner/Plaintiff moved an application under Order-6 Rule-17 of the Civil Procedure Code for amendment of the plaint. The Trial Court rejected the amendment application as the same was belatedly filed by placing reliance on proviso to Order-6 Rule-17 of the Civil Procedure Code. The Trial Court has also observed that the Plaintiff came to know of the facts sought to be pleaded by the proposed amendment on 07.01.2009 when the Defendant No.1 has filed his affidavit of examination-in-chief, but the Plaintiff failed to promptly move the Court and was not diligent. It is also observed by the Trial Court in the impugned order that the *2* facts relating to the proposed amendment have already come on record in the cross-examination of the Defendants. Thus, the amendment application came to be dismissed. It is this order which is challenged in this petition. 2 Without going into merit of the matter and solely for the reason that the suit is now fixed for final argument, I do not propose to interfere with the impugned order, however, leave it open for the Petitioner/ Plaintiff to question the correctness of the impugned order in case the suit is dismissed or the issue is answered against the Petitioner and the Petitioner is constrained to file Regular Civil Appeal. Thus, Writ Petition is dismissed. (A.P. Deshpande, J)