1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 4154 OF 2010 (Tribhuvandas Panachand Shah vs. Bajranglal Chaturbhuj Bajoriya) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. AUGUST 27, 2010. Heard Shri Deepesh Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner – defendant. His contention is, suit as filed is of the year 2001 and hence only delay could not have been the reason for rejecting the application for amendment. His further contention is, the events sought to be brought on record are of vital importance to throw light on the alleged bonafide need of the respondent – plaintiff. He has also stated that the respondent has pleaded about filing of a suit against the proprietor of Chetna Uphar Gruh and its further details have not been brought on record and those details are also essential. He, therefore, wishes to rely upon certain judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court and by this Court to urge that considering the nature of material to be placed on record, only on account of delay, amendment could not have been rejected. He has also explained that because the petitioner – defendant was prosecuting other applications in the matter, he could not move application under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Civil 2 Procedure Code at the earliest. He argues that till date situation has not become irreversible. He also adds that the trial Court as also appellate Court have not recorded a finding about the relevance or otherwise of the material to be placed on record. With the assistance of learned counsel, I have perused the records. The perusal of application as filed shows that the amendment application has been moved on 18.03.2009. The respondent – plaintiff has filed his affidavit of examination-in-chief on 24.06.2005 and he was not cross examined till 18.03.2009 and even thereafter. The alleged subsequent events sought to be incorporated are not shown to have come to the notice of the petitioner – defendant after 24.06.2005. Looking to this conduct of the petitioner – defendant, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter in writ jurisdiction. However, the petitioner is at liberty to challenge the impugned order after the suit is finally decided by Small Causes Court. Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.