wp4232.11.odt 1/2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETN. NO.4232/2011 Sau.Shobha W/o Prakash Deshmukh and others -vs- Prakash Nanaji Deshmukh and others ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders. or directions and Registrar's orders. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Shri G. N. Khanzode, learned counsel for the petitioners. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : 29.08.2011. Heard. The petitioners had filed an amendment application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure at the appellate stage. The petitioners had filed a suit for declaration, partition and mandatory injunction against the respondents. The suit was partly decreed. At the appellate stage, the petitioners desired to amend the suit seeking incorporation of certain paragraphs in the plaint and also seeking a decree for partition and separate possession. The First Appellate Court rightly rejected the application filed by the petitioners by the impugned order dated 25/07/2011. The amendment application could not have been allowed in view of the proviso to the provisions of Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The First Appellate Court observed and rightly so, that there was nothing in the wp4232.11.odt 2/2 amendment application to show as to why the petitioners did not raise the said pleas in the original suit or raise the pleas with due diligence before the commencement of trial. The First Appellate Court found that by the proposed amendment the petitioners indeed desired to reopen the proceedings in the original suit as the proposed amendment was an afterthought. Since the petitioners had not explained as to what prevented them from filing the amendment application before the commencement of the trial, the First Appellate Court was justified in rejecting the application by the impugned order dated 25/07/2011. In the result the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE KHUNTE