1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 558 OF 2009 Sameer s/o. Sudhir Joshi and another. .. Petitioner Versus Teraj Banechand Jain .. Respondents -- Mr. S.S. Dande, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. S.P. Tiwari, Advocate for respondent. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. DATE : 11TH JUNE, 2009. ORAL ORDER :- 1. By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 15th September, 2009, vide which the application filed by the respondent/plaintiff for amendment of the plaint is allowed. 2. The respondent/plaintiff has filed a suit for recovery of an amount, which according 2 to the plaintiff has been given to the present petitioner. In the said suit, an application under Order 7 Rule 11 came to be filed by the present petitioner for rejecting the plaint on the ground that it is beyond limitation. The plaintiff, thereafter, filed an application for amendment so as to incorporate a pleading that the defendant has given a receipt acknowledging the debt on 10/6/2000. It has been averred that since the defendant had pleaded that the suit was beyond limitation, it was necessary to make an averment with regard to the same. The said application was allowed. Hence the present petition. 3. Shri Dande, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said amendment changes the nature of the suit. He furthers submits that by allowing the application, the plaintiff has been permitted to cure the defect and to bring the suit within limitation. 4. Shri Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposed the petition. 5. Admittedly, in the said suit, issues are yet to be framed and evidence is yet to commence. It is a settled law that the courts have to take 3 a liberal view in the matter of grant of amendment. The only rider is that if the amendment is sought to be incorporated after the commencement of trial, the same can not be allowed unless the party satisfies the condition that the matter could not be brought on record prior to commencement of trial in spite of exercise of due diligence. In the present case, issues are yet to be framed, trial is yet to commence. The amendment does not change the nature of the suit. In any case, merits of the amendment are not to be gone into, at the stage of consideration of application for amendment. The petitioner/defendant would always be at liberty to file an additional written statement, to counter the amendment sought to be brought on record. 6. In that view of the matter, no perversity could be found with the approach adopted. Hence, writ petition is rejected. Needless to mention that the interim relief, if any, stands vacated. [B.R. GAVAI, J.] /home/grt/9june9/wp