1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3918 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 3918 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 3918 OF 2008 M/s. Amritlal & Co. & Ors. ... Petitioners (Orig. Defendants) Versus Lalitkumar Hamirmal & Ors. ... Respondents (Orig. Plaintiffs) Mr. R.V.Govilkar, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Bharat Vaishnawa i/b. M/s. Bharat Vaishnawa & Co., Advocates for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA, J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA, J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA, J. DATE: 24th November, 2008. DATE: 24th November, 2008. DATE: 24th November, 2008. P.C P.C P.C 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioners are the original defendants in 2 RAE Suit No.660/1308 of 1996 which was filed by the respondents/landlords for eviction on the ground of bonafide and reasonable requirement. The petitioners/tenants filed an application for amendment of the written statement in December, 2007 contending that during the pendency of the suit, the plaintiffs had transferred certain tenancies from old tenants to some new tenants without giving the date as to when they had come to know about the same. The application was contested by the plaintiffs/respondents on the ground that this was merely an attempt to protract the litigation. The learned trial Court also dismissed the application for amendment. Hence, the defendants have come to this Court in Writ Petition challenging that order. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioners/defendants contended that the trial Court rejected the amendment to the written statement and permission to lead additional evidence only on the ground that in view of the proviso to order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C. as amended with effect from 1.7.2002, no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that inspite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement 3 of trial. The learned Counsel points out that in Jerry Jerry Jerry Alex Braganza and another vs. Rajeshree alias Rayeshri Alex Braganza and another vs. Rajeshree alias Rayeshri Alex Braganza and another vs. Rajeshree alias Rayeshri Ramdas Borkar & Ors. 2003 (4) Mh.L.J.1034 Ramdas Borkar & Ors. 2003 (4) Mh.L.J.1034 Ramdas Borkar & Ors. 2003 (4) Mh.L.J.1034, this Court had held that the amended provisions are not applicable to the pending proceedings in respect of the written statement. According to him, in view of this, the trial Court is wrong in rejecting the application. 4. After perusal of the record, I find that even though the observation of the trial Court that in view of the amended provisions of Order VI Rule 17, the amendment could not be allowed, is correct, on merits, the application was rightly rejected. The record reveals that the plaintiff had filed an affidavit in evidence in the year 2003 and he was cross-examined during the years 2004 to 2006 at length raising all the questions about the alleged transfers of other tenancies. Not only this, the defendant had also filed his own affidavit in evidence in which he had raised all the points and he was cross-examined at length by the plaintiff. At the fag end of the trial, on 19.12.2007, the defendant filed this application for amendment. As pointed out earlier, the suit was filed in the year 1996 for eviction on the ground of bonafide and reasonable requirement of the plaintiffs. It appears that the defendants were interested only in prolonging the 4 litigation and that is why inspite of having taken the same plea in the cross-examination of the plaintiff and in his own examination-in-chief long back, the defendants filed an application for amendment in December, 2007. This clearly shows that the defendants were motivated to prolong the matter by filing this application for amendment. These facts were also noted by the trial Court in the impugned order. 5. Taking into consideration these circumstances, I find no substance in the present petition and the petition stands dismissed. 6. At this stage, the learned Counsel for the petitioners seeks stay of this order for a period of two weeks. The request is rejected. (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) 5