1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 9616 OF 2009 Smt. Antoinette w/o Iris D’souza........ Petitioner versus Ardeshri Salamat Irani ........Respondent. Mr. Mandar Limaye adv. for the Petitioner None for the Respondent. CORAM: A. P DESHPANDE, J. DATED : 01st December, 2009. P. C.: 1. The present petitioner is original defendant against whom a decree for ejectment and possession has been passed and aggrieved thereby a regular civil appeal has been filed which is pending before the first appellate court. In the pending appeal, the petitioner moved an application for amendment of the written statement by contending that during pendency of the suit so also during pendency of the appeal, the plaintiff has come in possession of various properties. The first appellate court has rejected the said application by holding that the petitioner was in know of the fact in as much as it was so pleaded by the petitioner in the written statement itself and that the petitioner has not assigned any 2 sufficient cause for the belated filing of the application. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that some of the properties have come in possession of the plaintiff after filing of the appeal. Perusal of the application clearly reveals that the petitioner did not clearly specify which of the properties have come in possession of the plaintiff during pendency of the appeal. On vague assertion the application has been filed and according to the first appellate court with a view to delay the proceedings. The first appellate court while rejecting the application has observed that had the petitioner being diligent, he could have move the application much earlier. The application was found to be not maintainable in view of the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 and hence rejected the same. 3. Perused the impugned order. The same does not call for any interference. In the result writ petition is summarily dismissed. (A. P. Deshpande, J.)