1 WP 6436.2011 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6436 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders Mr. M.M.Patil (Beedkar), Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. R.P.Phatake, Asstt.Govt. Pleader for State. ............................... CORAM :S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE :29/08/2011 PER COURT : 1. Heard Mr. Milind M.Patil (Beedkar), the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner is the original plaintiff, who had filed Suit for declaration of ownership and injunction. The petitioner/plaintiff led the oral evidence, also examined the witnesses and thereafter closed his evidence. After closure of the evidence of the plaintiff, the plaintiff filed an application for amendment seeking incorporation of the East – West boundary and further submits that the western portion is fertile in comparison with the eastern portion of G.No. 468. The said amendment application is rejected. Aggrieved thereby, the present Writ Petition is filed. 2 WP 6436.2011 3. Mr. Patil, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Court has taken a very technical approach while rejecting the said application. According to the learned counsel, simply because the evidence of the plaintiff is closed, that can not be the sole ground to reject the application for amendment. The Court has to consider the fact that the amendment does not change the nature of the Suit and rules are made only to secure the proper administration of justice and the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure [ For short, ‘ the Code ’ ] would not take away the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the amendment application even after the evidence is led by the plaintiff. For the said purpose, the learned counsel relies on the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Usha Balasaheb Swami and others V/s Kiran Appaso Swami and others reported in 2007 ALL SCR – 1333. 4. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the petitioner, I have gone through the pleadings and the impugned order. 5. It is a fact that the said application is made after the plaintiff has closed his evidence. The application for amendment does not state any reason for non filing of the application earlier. The said application does not depict exercise of due diligence. No doubt, proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code would not take away the jurisdiction of 3 WP 6436.2011 the Court to deal with the application. But, the plaintiff along with due diligence will also have to show relevancy of the said amendment. Perusal of the application for amendment does not state as to how the application is relevant. The trial Court has observed that earlier also the petitioner had filed amendment application, which was allowed. At that time also, the petitioner did not plead about the fact sought to be incorporated by the present amendment application. 6. For all the aforesaid reasons, I do not see any error of jurisdiction committed by the trial Court while rejecting the amendment application. 7. In light of the above, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.] KNP/WP 6436.2011