1] wp 8978-2010.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8978 OF 2010 Ashok Hanmanta Khare & Ors. ..Petitioners vs. Aruna Pravin Thakkar ..Respondent Ms.Shilpa Kapil for the Petitioners. Respondent present in person. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J DATED : JANUARY 28, 2011. P.C. : 1 By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the Order dated 25th August, 2010, vide which the Chamber Summons taken out by the respondent-plaintiff for amendment of the plaint was allowed. 2 The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-defendant submits that the learned trial court has grossly erred in allowing the 2] wp 8978-2010.sxw amendment. He submitted that by allowing the amendment, the learned trial court permitted the plaintiff to dilute the case of the defendant. She submits that the very question of maintainability of the suit has been raised by the defendant in her written statement. It is submitted that by the averments which are sought to be incorporated by amendment, the plaintiff has tried to fill in the lacuna in his case 3 It is settled law that the Courts are required to take liberal view in grant of amendment. The only rider in view of the proviso of Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC is that, when amendment is sought to place on record the matter, after commencement of the trial, which with exercise of due diligence could have been placed prior to the commencement of trial, such an amendment should not be allowed. Undisputedly, the suit has reached only till the stage of framing of issues. The evidence is yet to commence. 3] wp 8978-2010.sxw 4 The learned trial court has given cogent reasons while allowing the chamber summons. No perversity is noticed to warrant interference. In any case, in order to compensate the prejudice which is caused to the defendant, the learned trial court has already saddled the costs upon the plaintiff. In that view of the matter, no case is made out for interference. 5 Writ Petition is rejected. 6 Needless to state that the petitioner is always at liberty to file additional consequential written statement so as to lead the case put up by the plaintiff before the trial court. (B.R. GAVAI, J)