1 1. FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.914/2010. (Mr.Sudhakar Rambhau Ambilwade and Ors. Vs. M/s Kamal Distributors and Ors.) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders. or directions and Registrar’s orders ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr.AS Deshmukh, Adv. for petitioners; ___ CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL ,J. DATE : 30 th September, 2010. ... 1) Heard. 2) At the stage of evidence of Bank Manager, the plaintiff learnt that the cheque in question was issued by the person, who was not a partner of defendant no.2. Consequently, an application in terms of Order VI Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code was moved below Exhibit-37 in Special Civil Suit No.112/2007. The learned Judge, by order dated 3rd December, 2009, dismissed the same. It is questioned in the writ. 3) By virtue of amendment effective 1.7.2002, proviso under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC, creates an impediment to entertain such sort of amendment. Due diligence, as is to be incorporated, necessitates to be so established. That apart, the learned Judge has observed 2 that, no prejudice is caused to the plaintiff, if amendment, as sought, is refused. The plaintiff has sued the partnership firm and claimed that he had acquaintence to the partners of the firm since long and had long drawn transactions. It was not open subsequently, from the plaintiff to accept that somebody else is partner of the firm and needs to be pleaded. Rejection of the application need not be question. The position of law under Order XXX of CPC will also be taking care in the lis. 4) Writ Petition dismissed. No costs. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE bdv/