*1* IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.9205/2003 Shaikha Adam Usman Khan. ..Petitioner -VERSUS- Vikram Mahipati Javalkar @ Dawalkar (Decd.) and others. ..Respondents ............... Ms.Surekha Jangam, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr.P.J. Pawar, Advocate for the Respondents Nos.1A & 1B. ............... CORAM: A.P. DESHPANDE, J. Dated 04th December, 2009. PC:- 1 The present petition questions legality and propriety of the order passed by the District Judge, Pune dated 19.04.2003 whereby the application moved by the Petitioner/ Plaintiff for amendment of plaint moved under Order-6 Rule-17 of the Civil Procedure Code has been rejected. According to the learned counsel for the Petitioner, a suit was filed in the year 1979 for injunction simplicitor. After trial of suit, the same came to be dismissed in the year 1998 and aggrieved by the judgment and decree, the present Petitioner/ Plaintiff preferred Regular Civil Appeal in the year 1999 before the District Court. In appeal so preferred, an application for amendment has been filed whereby the Petitioner purposes to claim a relief of removal of encroachment and handing over of possession. *2* The first Appellate Court has categorically observed with reference to Exhibits-32 and 33 filed by the Plaintiff in the original suit that the Plaintiff had knowledge of construction raised by the Respondents/ Defendants in the year 1985 itself. The applications at Exhibits-32 and 33, so also copy of plaint has not been placed on record. The first Appellate Court has concluded that belatedly after lapse of about 17 years, an application for amendment has been filed. In absence of any satisfactory explanation of delay in taking out the said application under Order-6 Rule-17 of the Civil Procedure Code, the same has been rejected. 2 Perused the impugned order, the same does not call for any interference. Writ Petition is dismissed summarily. Certified copy is expedited. (A.P. Deshpande, J)