1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 8597 OF 2009 Sachin Subhashrao Daithankar .. petitioners Versus Pandirtao Digambarrao Daithankar and others .. Respondent. --- Mr. G.O. Wattamwar, Advocate holding for Mr. S.G. Rudrawar, Advocate for petitioner. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI,J. DATE : 17th December, 2009. ORAL ORDER :- 1] By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 17th August, 2009 vide which the application filed by the present petitioner for amendment of the plaint came to be rejected. 2] The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the amendment was for correction of a typographical error and, therefore, ought to have been allowed by the trial court. 2 3] Admittedly, the evidence of the defendants has already commenced and, therefore, it is crystal clear that the present application has been filed after the commencement of trial. The amendment which is sought to be incorporated could have been very well brought on record had the petitioner exercised due diligence prior to the commencement of trial. Not only this but on earlier occasion also, the petitioner has amended the suit. Even at that stage, the amendment which is sought to be brought on record now, could have been brought on record. IN that view of the matter, it cannot be said that discretion exercised by the learned trial court has been exercised in a perverse manner. No case is made out for interference in the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the writ petition is rejected. [B.R. GAVAI,J.] Grt/-