(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 10959 OF 2010 1. Ramprasad Hiralal Golwa, Age : 72 years, Occupation : Agriculture. 2. Shantilal Panalal Golwa, Age : 35 years, Occupation : Agriculture. Both R/o. Ghargaon, Taluka : Sangamner, .. Petitioners District : Ahmednagar. (Original plaintiffs) versus 1. Bhagwan s/o. Hiralal Golwa (dead). 2. Ghansham Bhagwandas Golwa, Age : 50 years, Occupation : Agriculture. 3. Satyanarayan Bhagwandas Golwa, Age : 74 years, Occupation : Agriculture. 4. Bhau Dhondiba Mengal, Age : 69 years, Occupation : Agriculture. (2) 5. Sakharam Dhondiba Mengal, .. Respondent no.5 Age : 67 years, deleted. Occupation : Agriculture. 6. Jija Bhau Mengal, Age : 32 years, Occupation : Agriculture. Respondent nos.1 to 3, R/o. Ghargaon, Taluka : Sangamner, District : Ahmednagar. Respondent Nos.4 to 6, .. Respondents R/o. Kalas, Taluka : Akole, (Original defendant District : Ahmednagar. nos.1 to 6) ....................... Mr. S.K. Shinde, Advocate, for the petitioners. Respondent no.1 dead. Mr. S.T. Shelke, Advocate, for respondent nos.2 and 3. Mr. R.M. Sharma, Advocate, for respondent nos.4 and 6. Respondent no.5 deleted. ........................ (3) CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 15TH MARCH 2011 COURT'S ORDER : 1. Heard Adv. Mr. S.K. Shinde, for the petitioners; Adv. Mr. S.T. Shelke, for respondent nos.2 and 3, and Adv. Mr. R.M. Sharma, for respondent nos.4 and 6. 2. The petitioners have challenged the order dated 15-11-2010, passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sangamner, below Exhibits 104 and 109 in Regular Civil Suit No. 301 of 2003. 3. The trial court has not permitted the petitioners / plaintiffs to carry out amendment after the trial had started. According to Adv. Mr. S.K. Shinde, only area of suit field which has been erroneously mentioned as 4.97 hectares needs to be corrected as 4.27 hectares. He contends that no prejudice would be caused to other side thereby. 4. Both the learned Counsel have pointed out cross examination conducted to urge that certain vital admissions are brought on record in this respect. According to them, if this (4) amendment in the pleading is granted, efficacy of those admissions would be lost. 5. Whether there are any admissions and what is their efficacy cannot be consideration at this stage. However, it appears that during his cross, certain questions about exact area, area under cultivation, etc. have been put to the petitioner. 6. The amended provisions of Order VI Rule 17 are applicable and the trial court after looking into all relevant aspects, has rejected the prayer for amendment. I do not see any jurisdictional error or perversity. 7. Adv. Mr. S.K. Shinde has relied upon certain judgments but in all those judgments, the court has considered unamended provisions of Order VI Rule 17. Those are not relevant here. 8. At this stage, Adv. Mr. S.K. Shinde has pointed out that the judgment reported at 2007(1) Mh.L.J. 331, in the case of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. Precious Finance Investment Pvt. Ltd., considers the situation after amendment to Order VI Rule 17. The judgment lays down that court has jurisdiction to grant amendment if inspite of due diligence the (5) amendment could not have been moved earlier. Here, in cross examination, the relevant facts are already put to the petitioner and when he filed written statement, he could have given correct area. Why he could not move amendment application earlier is a crucial question which has not been explained. The judgment, cited supra, has no application to the present case. 9. With liberty to the petitioner, to challenge the impugned order after suit is finally decided, if occasion therefor arises, present petition is disposed of. No costs. ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp10959