1 WP 4012.2011 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4012 OF 2011 Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Mr. R.V.Gore, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr.K.B.Choudhari, Asstt.Govt. Pleader for State. .......................... CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 14/06/2011 PER COURT : 1. Initially, the present petitioners have filed Suit for perpetual injucntion simplicitor. Thereafter, by an amemdnemt, sought declaration that the sale deed executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant no. 1 is null and void, not binding and it be cancelled. 2. The matter was fixed for evidence. On the said date, the plaintiff filed an application for amendment trying to bring on record the non encashment of the cheques by the plaintiff and filing of proceedings U/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act [ For short, ‘ N.I. Act ’ ], so also the conviction of the accused i.e. defendant no. 1 2 WP 4012.2011 in the said case. The said application came to be rejected. Aggrieved thereby, the present petition has been filed. 3. Mr. Gore, the learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contends that the amendment is necessitated because of the events during the pendency of the Suit. The cheques were dishonoured and the criminal case was filed after the Suit was filed. Even the defendant no. 1 was convicted in the year 2007. These facts are necessary to be brought on record to substantiate the case put-forth by the petitioner. According to the learned counsel, the provisions for amendment has to be liberally construed. 4. The Suit is filed in October, 2002. As such, the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure applies. The applicant should show due diligence in filing the application for amendment. More over, the Judgment passed by the Court trying complaint U/s 138 of the N.I.Act can always be produced on record. The Judgment passed by the Court is also not required to be proved. The petitioner has already sought declaration about the sale deed said to be executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant no. 1 by way of an amendment, so also has pleaded about 3 WP 4012.2011 non payment of the total consideration amount. 5. Perusal of the order shows that the Court has taken into consideration all the aspects and has rejected the application. No error can be found in the said order. As such, the Writ Petition is dismissed, however, with no order as to costs. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J. ] KNP/WP 4012.2011