1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.6320 OF 2008 & WRIT PETITION NO. 6453 OF 2008 Shri Bhatu Shankar Patel ..PETITIONER. VERSUS Shri Shantilal Rikhabchand Jain and ors. ..RESPONDENTS. Mr. M.M. Bhokarikar, Advocate for petitioner. Shri R.M.Sancheti Advocate for respondent No.5. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J : DATE : 6 th JULY, 2009. PER COURT : 1. By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 01.08.2008 vide which the application filed by the present petitioner for amendment of the plaint came to be rejected. 2- The petitioner-plaintiff has filed a suit for specific performance and cancellation of an instrument. After the evidence was over, hearing of the suit was part heard, the plaintiff had filed an application for amendment of the 2 plaint. By way of amendment, the petitioner-plaintiff seeks to bring on record, certain averments regarding as to how the amount which was given to the defendants was raised by him. Said application is rejected under Proviso VI Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code. 3- Legal position after amendment to Civil Procedure Code is very clear. Unless a party point out that the matter which is sought to be brought on record could not be brought on record prior to the commencement of trial inspite of exercise of due diligence, the court has no jurisdiction to entertain an application for amendment. Reference in this respect is made in the judgment of Apex Court in case of Vidyabai and ors V/s Padmalatha and anr. Reported in 2009 (1) ALL MR 471. In that view of the matter, it can be seen that the learned Trial Court was correct in rejecting the application. No case for interference is made out in the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. Hence, rejected. ( B. R. GAVAI ) JUDGE *** aaa/wp6320.09