wp10766.10 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 10766 OF 2010 Vitthal Nivratti Jadhav ...Petitioner Versus Vyankat s/o Laxman Nirmal and others ...Respondents ..... Mr. S.B. Rohile, advocate for the petitioner ..... CORAM: S. S. SHINDE, J. DATED: 3RD DECEMBER, 2010 PER COURT:- 1 This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 29.7.2010 passed by learned C.J.J.D. Parali Vaijinath, below Exh.29 in R.C.S. No. 39 of 2007. 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the amendment application was filed only to bring on record the flow of water from east to west, except that there was nothing in the amendment application. Counsel for the petitioner merely wanted to mention the fact in the plaint about flow of water from east to west, which would not prejudice the interest of either of the parties or it will not change the nature of the suit or the reliefs claimed therein. Therefore, counsel would submit that the writ petition deserves to be allowed. wp10766.10 2 3 Upon hearing counsel for the petitioner and upon perusal of the application which was filed for amendment, it appears that the application was not only simplicitor for amendment in the plaint that the flow of water is from east to west. There are certain allegations made against the defendants that they have destroyed the Bandh between Gat No. 241 and 243 and also in clause 2 of the said application, the plaintiff sought the amendment of sketch map given alongwith the application. Therefore, the application was not only simplicitor for amendment to the effect of showing flow of water from East-West. That apart, the trial court in para 10 has observed that the application is filed after the trial is commenced. Moreover, there appears no cogent ground to reach to the conclusion that plaintiff could not have raised this proposed amendment before commencement of trial inspite of due diligence. On the contrary, the said application is filed after cross examination is over. This particular aspect gives a ground to think about genuineness of the application. 4 Therefore, on independent scrutiny and taking into consideration the provisions of Order VI Rule 17 proviso, in my opinion, no case is made out for interference. Hence, writ petition stands dismissed. ( S. S. SHINDE. J.) rlj/