1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 10114 OF 2010 Sau. Hirkanbai Keshav Nerkar ...Petitioner Versus Namdeo Tukaram Wagh (deceased Through L.Rs.) Venubai Namdeo Wagh and Ors ...Respondents ..... Mr. Mahesh H. Patil, advocate for the petitioner Mr. C.R. Deshpande, advocate for respondents 2 & 3 - caveators ..... CORAM: S. S. SHINDE, J. DATED: 30TH NOVEMBER, 2010 PER COURT:- 1 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. He submits that an application for amendment in the written statement was filed since there were subsequent developments and the relationship between the original plaintiffs and defendant No.2 was quite strained and therefore, the petitioner herein, who is original defendant No.2 was required to file an application for amendment of the written statement so as to consider the relief for declaration of ownership of 1/2 of the portion of the suit property. Therefore, learned counsel would submit that merely because some amendment is brought in the written statement the same would not cause any prejudice to either of the parties. 2 2 On the other hand, counsel for the respondents, who is on caveat relied upon the reasons recorded by the trial court and the submitted that no interference is warranted since the application for amendment in the written statement was filed at belated stage. 3 Upon hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and concerned respondents who is on caveat, I am of the opinion that the application which was filed by the petitioner for amendment of written statement was admittedly at belated stage. Some of the witnesses are examined and cross examination is also over. It is not in dispute that trial is commenced in 2007. The mandate of Order VI Rule 17 provides that unless due diligence is shown the application for amendment should not be entertained. On this backdrop, the application filed by the petitioner for amendment has been rejected by the trial court. It is also an admitted position that the suit which was filed for perpetual injunction by the plaintiff, who is brother of the petitioner herein, in the said suit the petitioner herein has supported the prayer of the plaintiff. The trial court has taken possible view that the application filed by the petitioner for amendment of the written statement is to delay the trial. No interference is warranted. Hence, writ petition stands dismissed. ( S. S. SHINDE. J.) rlj/ 3