1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 9629 OF 2010 1 Suresh s/o Sahebrao Boke, age: 40 years, Occ: Agril., 2 Vithal s/o Bhau Boke, age: 47 years, Occ: Agri. & service, Both R/o Kokangaon, Tq.Shrigonda, Dist.Ahmednagar. Petitioners Versus 1 Vilas s/o Savala Shinde, age: 50 years, Occ: service; 2 Sandhya w/o Vilas Shinde, age: 45 years, Occ: Agri., 3 Bhagubai Sahebrao Boke, age: 70 years, Occ: Household; 4 Dilip Sahebrao Boke, age: 48 years, Occ: Agril. & service; All above R/o Kokangaon, Tq.Shrigonda, Dist.Ahmednagar. Respondents Mr. N.V.Gaware, advocate for petitioners. Mr. H.H.Padalkar, advocate for Respondents No.1 & 2. 2 CORAM: R.M.BORDE, J. DATE : 13 th October, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT: 1 Heard learned Counsel for petitioner and learned Counsel for contesting respondents. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for respective parties. 2 The trial Court has turned down the application tendered by plaintiffs seeking amendment to the plaint for the reason that the amendment is sought after commencement of evidence and at the stage when suit is posted for hearing arguments of the parties. Another reason recorded in the order is that plaintiffs were aware of the facts stated in the amendment application, but have failed to bring it on record for last four years after gaining knowledge, i.e. in substance, the application is rejected on the ground of delay in tendering the application. 3 It is the contention of petitioners that the trial Court has proceeded to decide the application in accordance with amended provisions of the Civil Procedure Code. Suit is presented on 29.05.2001, whereas, amendment to the Code has been brought into effect from 01.07.2001. 4 In these circumstances, it would be desirable to direct 3 the trial Court to consider the application in accordance with unamended provisions of Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The trial Court shall proceed to decide the application on its own merits and in accordance with provisions of law. 5 The order passed by the trial Court on 16.09.2010, below Exhibit-74 in Regular Civil Suit No.152/2001 is set aside and the matter is remitted back for reconsideration of application at Exhibit-74. The trial Court shall proceed to decide the application and pass appropriate orders after extending opportunity of hearing to respective parties, within four weeks from today. The trial Court need not be influenced by any observations made by this Court in this order. 6 Rule is accordingly made absolute. In the facts and circumstances of this case, there shall be no order as to costs. (R.M.BORDE) JUDGE ******* adb/wp962910