1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 1470/2009 (Sahebrao Ramdas Gawande & ors. Vs. Prakash Gunwantrao Gawande & anr.) Appeal District : Application No. of 200 Writ petition Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's orders. Mr. B.K. Gandhi, Adv. for the petitioners. Mr. Sarda, adv. for respondents. CORAM : Smt. Vasanti A. Naik, J. DATED : 9 th APRIL, 2009. By the instant petition, the petitioners impugn the order passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Jr. Dn., Akola, on 15/11/2008, rejecting an application filed by the petitioners for amendment of the written statement. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the application for amendment filed by the defendants and the reply filed by the plaintiff thereto. I have also perused the impugned order dated 15/11/2008. From a perusal of the impugned order, it is clear that the trial Court has committed no error in rejecting the application filed by the defendants. According to the trial Court, the amendment application was filed merely with a view to protract the matter. The trial Court held that the factum of the execution of the Will by 2 the father of the defendant no.1 and the possession of the defendant over the suit property was within the knowledge of the defendants at the time of filing of the written statement. The trial Court held that in view of the amended provisions of Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the amendment application was liable to be rejected. The Court observed that the defendants had not disclosed as to why the amendment application could not have been moved before the commencement of trial in spite of due diligence. The plaintiffs had categorically pleaded that the plaintiffs became the owners of the suit property in pursuance of the registered sale deed dated 28/4/1989. The defendants had denied this fact in the written statement. Now, by the proposed amendment, the defendants wanted to plead that the sale deed was a manipulated and bogus document. According to the trial Court, and rightly so, such an amendment was not permissible in view of the provisions of Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court also observed that the matter was at the stage of cross-examination of the plaintiff and the matter was adjourned from time to time and the cross- examination of the plaintiff was deferred. In such circumstances, on a perusal of the amendment application and the say filed by the plaintiffs and on 3 considering the stage of the proceedings, the Court rightly held that the amendment application was filed by the petitioners with a view to delay the trial. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no orders as to costs. JUDGE RMP