1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR. Writ Petition No. 3620 of 2008 (Dr. Avinash Banait & anr. Vs. Subhashrao Ganpatrao Buti & anr.) Appeal District : Application No. of 200 Writ petition - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's Orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CORAM : Smt. Vasanti A. Naik, J. DATE : 6 th October, 2008 Heard Shri Sundaram for the petitioners and Shri A.C. Dharmadhikari for respondent nos. 1 and 2. By this petition, the petitioners impugn the order passed by the 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Sr. Dn., Nagpur, on 1/7/2006, dismissing the application filed by the petitioner for amendment of the written statement. It is stated in the amendment application filed by the petitioners that some events occurred after filing of the civil suit and, therefore, it is necessary to bring them on record. It is further stated in the application that there are other facts which the petitioners could gather from the record of the other 2 proceedings which they did not have knowledge of at the earlier point of time. It is then stated in the application that it is necessary to allow the application as the facts are material and have relevant bearing on the proceedings. The application is strongly opposed by the plaintiffs on the ground that the trial had already commenced and the evidence of the plaintiffs' witnesses was also tendered on affidavit. It was the case of the plaintiffs that the defendants had filed the amendment application with a view to protract the proceedings for eviction. The plaintiffs then stated in the reply that the written statement was filed by the defendants in the year 2006 and the proposed amendment does not speak of any subsequent events except the rendering of the judgment in Second Appeal No. 228 of 2005 and Special Leave Appeal (Civil) No 8276 of 2007 dated 16/7/2007. According to the plaintiffs, the proposed amendment seriously prejudices the case of the plaintiffs and also changes the nature of the defence. It was lastly pleaded that the statement made by the 3 defendants in the amendment application that they had no knowledge of certain facts, is totally false. I have perused the amendment application and the proposed amendment. I have also perused the reply filed by the plaintiffs to the application for amendment, and the impugned order dated 1/7/2008. A perusal of the proposed amendment clearly shows that the amendment sought to be made in paragraph nos. 24 and 24-A of the amendment application is in the nature of explanation to the plea raised by the defendants in the written statement filed in the year 2006. The counsel for the respondents has rightly submitted that the proposed amendment in paragraph no. 25 speaks of the subsequent events of dismissal of the second appeal and the special leave appeal by the High Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this fact has already been brought to the notice of the trial Court by the plaintiffs themselves. In this view of the matter, there was no reason to file the application for amendment of the written statement at a belated stage without any justified cause for the delay. The statements made in the amendment application that several facts were gathered by the defendants from the record of the other proceedings and they did not have knowledge of the same earlier, also appear to be 4 incorrect as all the facts mentioned in paragraphs 24 and 24-A of the proposed amendment are those which were within the knowledge of the defendants. In this view of the matter, the trial Court was clearly justified in rejecting the amendment application as the defendants had not brought anything on record to show that in spite of due diligence, they could not have raised the pleas at the time of filing of their written statement. In this case, it appears that the amendment application was filed with a view to protract the proceedings and in the facts and circumstances, the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2007 (5) MhLJ 593 and relied on by the counsel for the petitioners, would not be applicable. For the reasons aforesaid, the petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE RMP