IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY: NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.1732/2011 BHAGCHAND GELDA ..V.S. PARASMAL GELDA - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. D A T E : APRIL 11, 2011. Heard Shri Kothari, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Darda, the learned counsel for the sole respondent. Though the reasons recorded by the trial court for rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for amendment of the plaint may not be correct, the trial court did not commit any error in rejecting the amendment application filed by the petitioner. On a perusal of the original pleadings of the petitioner and the proposed amendment, it appears that the trial court rightly rejected the amendment application as the proposed amendment related to a matter of evidence and the necessary pleadings in regard to the facts stated in the proposed amendment already found place in the original pleadings of the petitioner. It is necessary to note that in this case the trial was concluded and the matter was fixed for arguments and in such circumstances, considering the facts which were sought to be incorporated by the proposed amendment the trial court rightly rejected the amendment application filed by the petitioner. The order passed by the trial court does not suffer from any jurisdictional error so as to interfere with the same in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. Hence the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE SMP