1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No.744 /2011 Smt. Kalalwlati S. Jaiswal & others. VERSUS Shrichand C. Batra - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. M.S. Gupta, Adv. for petitioners. Mr. S.S. Sharma, Adv. for Respondent- sole. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : APRIL 15 , 2011 . It prima appears on hearing the learned counsel for the parties that the respondent had not stated in the amendment application that he could not amend the pleadings before the commencement of the trial in spite of due diligence. However, since some of the facts pleaded in the proposed amendment were already stated by the respondent in his examination in chief, and the petitioner was also posed questions on the said fact in his cross-examination, it would not be necessary to interfere with the order passed by the First Appellate Court allowing the amendment application, more particularly because the learned counsel for the respondent makes a statement that the respondent would not tender any fresh oral evidence in regard to the proposed amendment and would at the most file the certified copies of the relevant documents on record. The learned counsel for the petitioners states that in view of the statement made on 2 behalf of the respondent that he would not tender any oral evidence on the proposed amendment, some grievance of the petitioner stands redressed as the petitioner was of the clear view that the proposed amendment was sought to be brought on record merely with a view to protract the proceedings filed by the landlord for eviction of the respondent on the ground of bonafide need. Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the case, since the respondent has undertaken not to tender any oral evidence in regard to the proposed amendment, the writ petition is disposed of with no order as to costs. The First Appellate Court is however, directed to decide the appeal as expeditiously as possible and positively within a period of three months from the date of appearance of the parties before the First Appellate Court. The learned counsel for the parties agree that they would argue the matter before the First Appellate Court and get the same decided on merits, even on the basis of additional documentary evidence, if any, produced before the First Appellate Court. JUDGE Hirekhan