1 abs FARAD CONTINUATION IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4148 OF 2010 ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Orders Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's Orders Mr. U.B. Nighot for the petitioner. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 16TH JUNE 2010 P.C. : 1. The petitioners challenge the order dated 28th January 2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division Pandharpur allowing the application for amendment filed by the respondents. 2. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the suit was filed in the year 2002 while the application for amendment was made in the 2 year 2009, that is after 7 years, and therefore the application should have been rejected. 3. It is settled principle of law that mere delay is not a ground for rejecting the application for amendment. Application for amendment can be allowed at any stage of the proceeding subject of course to proviso inserted in Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is not the case of the petitioners that the application for amendment has been made after the commencement of the evidence. Hence, the contention that the application should have been rejected on account of delay alone is rejected. 4. Counsel for the petitioners then submitted that the amendment changes the nature of the suit. It appears that during the pendency of the suit, the petitioners transferred the suit property without obtaining leave of the Court under section 52 of the Transfer of 3 Property Act. As the transfer of the property was effected during the pendency of the suit, there is no reason for denying the amendment. 5. The writ petition is rejected summarily. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)