1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 4137 of 2011 Sau. Rukhmabai M. Amle and others. ..VS.. Abhay R. Amle and others. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. R.L. Khapre, Adv. for the petitioners. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK J. DATE : 15 th September, 2011. Heard. By this petition, he petitioners impugn the order passed by the trial court on 7.6.2011 rejecting the application filed by the petitioners for amendment of the written statement. It appears that the respondent no.1 had instituted Reg. Civil Suit no. 135/2008 against the petitioners and some other defendants for partition and separate possession. The plaintiff had also filed an application for permission to sue as indigent person. It appears that the petitioners had filed a written statement-cum-reply to the application filed by the plaintiff for permission to sue as an indigent person at Exh.36. The first four paragraphs of the written statement were in answer to the pleadings in the plaint and the penultimate paragraph of the written statement cum reply to the application was in reply to the application filed by the plaintiff for permission to sue as an indigent person. When the plaintiff tendered his evidence and 2 the matter was placed before the court for cross-examination of one of the witnesses of the plaintiff, the petitioners filed an amendment application seeking to add four paragraphs in the written statement. The amendment application was, however, dismissed by the trial court by the impugned order dated 7.6.2011. On hearing the learned counsel, it appears that the trial court was justified in rejecting the amendment application filed by the petitioners, specially in view of the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure as there was nothing on record to show that in spite of due diligence the petitioners could not have amended the pleadings before the commencement of the trial. In fact, after the written statement- cum- reply to the application for permission to sue as an indigent person was filed, a pursis was also filed on record at Exh. 82 stating therein that Exh. 36, the written statement-cum- reply should be treated as the written statement of the petitioners. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the trial court cannot be faulted for rejecting the application filed by the petitioners for amendment of the written statement when the matter was posted for cross-examining the witness of the plaintiff. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE Hirekhan