1 WP 6557/10 abs FARAD CONTINUATION IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6557 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Orders Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's Orders Mr. B.P. Shukla for the petitioner. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 17TH AUGUST 2010 P.C. : 1. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 7 July 2010 passed by the learned Judge of the City Civil Court, Mumbai, refusing the application for amendment of the plaint. 2. One of the grounds on which the application has been rejected is that the application was made after the commencement of the trial. Proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of the 2 WP 6557/10 Code of Civil Procedure as amended by the amending Act of 2002 provides that no application for amendment of the pleadings shall be allowed after the commencement of the trial unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of the trial. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the amendment is sought in respect of the subsequent events and, therefore, the application should have been allowed. The date on which the subsequent events have happened is not mentioned in the chamber summons nor is it mentioned in the writ petition. Even on my oral question, learned counsel for the petitioner, even after instructions of the petitioner who is present in the Court, is unable to state the date of the happening of the subsequent events. Similarly, counsel is unable to state the date on which the 3 WP 6557/10 trial commenced and whether the alleged subsequent events have happened before or after the commencement of the trial. In the circumstances, there is no merit in the writ petition which is hereby rejected. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)