2707wp3515.11.odt 1 THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.3515 of 2011. Sonu Gangaramji Sharma ..vs.. The City of Nagpur Corporation and anr. ............................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ............................................................................................................................................................... Mr. S.R.Narnaware,Adv. for the petitioner. CORAM : R.M.SAVANT, J. DATED : 27th July, 2011. 1. The above petition takes exception to the order dated 4/3/2011 passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Nagpur, by which order the application for amendment of the plaint came to be rejected. 2. The petitioner is the original plaintiff, who has filed Reg.Civil Suit No.1036 of 2006 challenging the notice issued under Section 53(1) of the M.R.T.P. Act by the Nagpur Municipal Corporation. In the said suit the defendant no.2 on making an application came to be joined as a party-defendant to the suit. The defendant no.2 has filed his written Statement as long back as in the year 2007. Based on the disclosure made by the defendant no.2 in his Written Statement, that the plaintiff sought to amend the plaint by moving an application on 10/2/2011 for incorporating paragraph 5-A in the plaint.. 3. The Trial Court by the impugned impugned Order dated 4/3/2011 has rejected the application for amendment on the 2707wp3515.11.odt 2 ground that since the Trial has already commenced, the amendment application could not be allowed having regard to the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Trial Court was of the view that there is no explanation forthcoming from the plaintiff as to why the amendment application moved on the basis of the disclosure made in the Written Statement of the defendant no.2 filed in the year 2007 was not filed earlier. It is required to be noted that the evidence has already been recorded and at that point of time the amendment application Exh.63 came to be filed. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to rely upon the judgment of the Apex Court reported in 2007(5) Mh.L.J. 593 in the matter of Usha Balashaheb Swami and ors. ..vs.. Kiran Appasao Swami and ors., wherein the Apex Court has held that the principles applicable qua the amendment of a Written statement are different than qua the amendment of a plaint. The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the judgment of a learned Single judge of this court reported in 2004(3) Mh.L.J.376 in the matter Anant Tukaram Patil ..vs.. Lata Eknath Patil, wherein this court has allowed the wrong description of the house number to be corrected by allowing the amendment application. In my view, the facts of the instant case stand apart from the facts which were before the Apex Court as well as before the learned Single Judge of this Court. In that view of the matter, no case for interference is made out. Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. JUDGE chute 2707wp3515.11.odt 3