1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 4411/2008 (Gangaprasad R. Nishad vs. Krishna M. Upadhyay) CORAM : B.P.Dhamadhikari, J. DATE : 4 th DECEMBER, 2008 Heard Advocate Mohta holding for Advocate Parchure for petitioner and Advocate Barsainya for respondent. The petitioner/defendant in Special Civil Suit No.111/2002, after plaintiff tendered his evidence in examination-in-chief, took some adjournments to cross examine him and thereafter moved an application seeking permission to amend the written statement. Initially in the written statement, the stand was, cheques signed in blank were kept with respondent/plaintiff for payment of octroi & freight. After the evidence was adduced by plaintiff and taking adjournments for cross examination for about 7-8 months, amendment application was moved to contend that the cheques placed on record were not bearing the signature of petitioner/defendant. The Court below has not permitted such amendment after noticing that the said constituted 2 withdrawal of admission. The said order is challenged before this Court contending that in appropriate case, withdrawal of admission is also permissible. The reliance is being placed on judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2007 (5) Mh.L.J. 593. The contention is, the case for amendment of written statement need to be viewed in different perspective and accordingly it is being argued that the court below ought to have taken a liberal view. Advocate Barsainya argues that earlier it was admitted that cheques were signed by the petitioner/defendant and therefore, the effect of amendment was to withdraw the admission. Though, I am not in a position to accept the arguments of Advocate Barsainya that there were earlier admission that, cheques in disputes were signed by the petitioner/defendant at this stage, still considering the fact that suit is pending since 2002 and copies of cheques were already available on record and criminal prosecution under section 138 in relation to very same cheques is going on, the effort of respondent/defendant is only to delay the disposal of suit. When the respondent/plaintiff examined himself in-chief, he was not cross examined and thereafter an application was made for his recall. After recall was permitted, again he was not cross examined and 7 to 8 adjournments spreading over span of 7 to 8 months 3 have been obtained. All this is showing the conduct and attitude of the present petitioner in the matter. There is absolutely no explanation as to why such amendment could not be moved earlier. Hence, writ petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner/ defendant is at liberty to challenge the impugned order after final adjudication of the civil suit if the occasion therefor arises. JUDGE Rvjalit