1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR L.P.A. NO.319/2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 4886/2010 SMT. MANJULABAI NITNAWARE & ORS ..VS.. UDHAV GANVIR - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri U.M. Aurangabadkar, adv for appellant Shri S.V. Sohoni, adv for respondent CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK & P.B. VARALE, JJ. DATE : AUGUST 04, 2011. The appellant is the original plaintiff. A suit was instituted by the plaintiff for a declaration that the registered relinquishment deed dated 9.9.2004 was executed fraudulently and was liable to be set aside. The parties tendered the evidence and the matter was posted for arguments. At that juncture, the appellant / plaintiff moved an amendment application to challenge the unregistered relinquishment deed which was executed prior to the execution of the registered relinquishment deed. The trial court allowed the amendment application. However, the learned Single Judge by the order dated 16.12.2010 set aside the order passed by the trial court and held that the amendment application was liable to be rejected. The order dated 16.12.2010 appears to be just and proper. The learned Single Judge rightly found that the suit was at the stage of the final arguments and at that stage the amendment could not be allowed, merely because it was the 2 case of the plaintiff that error in not seeking the prayer at the earlier sage was inadvertent. Merely because the changed counsel became aware of this error at a subsequent point of time the plaintiff could not have been permitted to amend the plaint at the later stage when the matter was listed for final arguments. Hence the letters patent appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE SMP