:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 392 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 392 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 392 OF 2008 Sharadchandra Ramkrishna Deshmukh ..Petitioner V/s Maharashtra State Electricity Board and others ..Respondents Smt. Mandira Moitra for the petitioner Mr. A.R. Baxi for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 Mr. P.P. Killedar for respondent NO.3. CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.A. SAYED, J. : A.A. SAYED, J. : A.A. SAYED, J. DATE DATE DATE : 26TH JUNE, 2008 : 26TH JUNE, 2008 : 26TH JUNE, 2008 P.C. 1. The application of the petitioner/plaintiff for amendment to the plaint has been rejected by the Trial Court by the impugned order. 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the case of Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal & Ors Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal & Ors Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal & Ors V/s V/s V/s K.K. Modi & Ors. K.K. Modi & Ors. K.K. Modi & Ors., reported in 2006 AIR SCW 1538, Raghu Raghu Raghu Tilak D. John V. S. Rayappan and others Tilak D. John V. S. Rayappan and others Tilak D. John V. S. Rayappan and others, reported in AIR 2001 S.C. 699, Sampath Kumar V. Sampath Kumar V. Sampath Kumar V. Ayyakannu Ayyakannu Ayyakannu and another, and another, and another, reported in AIR 2002 S.C. 3369, M/s Eastern Rubber V. Dass Estate (Pvt.) M/s Eastern Rubber V. Dass Estate (Pvt.) M/s Eastern Rubber V. Dass Estate (Pvt.), reported in AIR 2001 S.C. 3295 and Pankaj and Pankaj and Pankaj and :2: another another another V. Yellappa (D) by L.Rs. and others V. Yellappa (D) by L.Rs. and others V. Yellappa (D) by L.Rs. and others, reported in AIR 2004 S.C. 4102. Relying upon the aforesaid decisions the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Trial Court had erred in disallowing the amendment sought. She further submitted that if the amendment is not allowed the suit would become infructuous. 3. I have perused the impugned order as well as the decisions relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Order 6 Rule 17 deals with the amendment of pleadings and it reads as follows:- "17.Amendment of Pleadings._ The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties." " Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial." 4. In the instant case, the trial has already commenced and there is no satisfactory explanation as to why the petitioner did not raise the matter before :3: the commencement of trial. That apart it is not in dispute that 3rd parties, who are flat purchasers are not parties to the suit. However, mandatory reliefs are sought by way of amendment to the plaint that the electricity authorities should disconnect the supply of electricity to the said flat purchasers. Merely because the suit would become infructuous if the amendment is not allowed does not mean that the amendment should have been allowed by the Trial Court. The petitioner can always file separate proceedings if he so desires. The decisions cited are not of any assistance to the petitioner in the facts of the present case. 5. I find no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order and the discretion exercised by the Trial Court is judicious and does not call for interference. 6. The petition is therefore, rejected. ( A.A. SAYED, J.) A.A. SAYED, J.) A.A. SAYED, J.)