(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 6048 OF 2009 Shripati Ganpati Batnapure, Age : 38 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Latur Road, .. Petitioner Taluka : Chakur, (Original District : Latur. plaintiff) versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, through District Collector, Latur, Dist. Latur. 2. The Tahsildar, Tahsil Office, Chakur, District : Latur. 3. The Talathi, Talathi Office, Mohanal, Taluka : Chakur, District : Latur. 4. Dr. Gulab Rahemansab Shaikh, Age : 57 years, Occupation : Agriculture and Medical Practitioner, R/o. Latur Road, Taluka : Chakur, District : Latur. .. Respondents. .......................... (2) Mr. V.D. Gunale, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. V.B. Ghatge, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos.1 to 3. Mr. Sachin Deshmukh, Advocate, for respondent no.4. .......................... CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. DATE : 23RD NOVEMBER 2009. COURT'S ORDER : 1. By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 29th July 2009, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Latur, below Exhibit 120 in Regular Civil Suit No. 217/2007, thereby rejecting the application filed by the present petitioner plaintiff for amendment of the plaint. 2. The petitioner has filed the suit for declaration, mandatory and perpetual injunction and also for a relief of possession. The suit is resisted by the respondents defendants. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner filed an application for amendment of the plaint so as to incorporate certain pleadings regarding loan transaction between the petitioner's grandfather and one Digamber Wadje, so as to emphasize that the son of said Digamber Wadje had no valid title to transfer the suit land (3) in favour of the son of defendant no.4. The said application is rejected. Hence, the present petition. 3. Mr. V.D. Gunale, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the learned Judge of the trial court has erred in rejecting the application. He submits that the plaintiff had inadvertently not placed the factual position regarding the loan transaction on record. He submits that, in the interest of justice, the said amendment ought to have been allowed. 4. Mr. V.B. Ghatge, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondent nos.1 to 3, and Mr. Sachin Deshmukh, learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.4, have vehemently opposed the petition. 5. The Apex Court, in the case of Vidyabai and others Vs. Padmalatha and another ((2009) 2 SCC 409), has held that if an amendment is sought to be placed on record after commencement of trial, a party has to satisfy the condition that the matter, which is now sought to be placed on record, could not have been placed on record, prior to commencement of trial, inspite of exercise of due diligence. Admittedly, in the present case, the issues are framed. Six witnesses on behalf of the plaintiff have been examined and, as such, trial has proceeded further quite substantial. It is also clear that the matter, now sought to be placed on record, could have been placed on record prior to commencement of trial, had the petitioner exercised due diligence. (4) 6. In that view of the matter, no perversity could be found with the approach adopted by the learned Judge of the trial court, so as to warrant interference in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. Hence, the petition is dismissed. ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp6048