1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.3274 OF 2009. PRABHAKAR VASANT NARKHEDE .. VERSUS .. ARJUN PRABHAKAR NARKHEDE & 7 OTHERS. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri Gopal Mishra, Advocate for Petitioner. Shri Gopal Thakare, Advocate for Respondents No.1 to 3. Shri R.G.Kavimandan, Advocate for Respondents No.4,6 & 7. CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATE : FEBRUARY 16, 2010. 1. This petition, by defendant No.6 in Regular Civil Suit No.54 of 2003 before learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Malkapur, questions rejection of his application for amendment of written statement by the learned Civil Judge. This amendment was sought by application dated 27.10.2004. The written statement itself was filed by the petitioner on 24th September, 2003. 2. First, as rightly observed by the learned trial Judge, the pleas which are now sought to be raised are not material. Even according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the pleas which are sought to be raised by the proposed amendment are mere elaborations of the pleas already raised in paragraph 10 of the written statement. If the petitioner indeed wants to elaborate the pleas he should have taken care to see that the elaboration is consistent with 2 the pleas earlier taken. The particulars which are now sought to be given about the loans taken, particularly from Supdu Govinda Mahajan and Shrikrushna Tukaram Kandelkar conflict with the pleas earlier taken. It cannot be said that the learned Judge erred in rejecting the application of the petitioner, since the petitioner had not shown any reason as to why he could not incorporate these please in the written statement originally filed. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. JUDGE RR..