1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 5260/2009 (Manav Sewa Co-op. Housing Society, Nagpur VERSUS Gandhinagar Co-operative H.S. Ltd. Nagpur & others) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri J.M. Shamkuwar, counsel for the petitioner. Shri M.B. Naidu, counsel for the R-19. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : DECEMBER 8, 2009. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order passed by the Joint Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nagpur on 05.11.2009 rejecting an application filed by the petitioner for permission to make consequential amendment in the written statement. It appears that the suit was filed in the year 1983. The plaintiff amended the plaint and the petitioner and the other defendants were asked to effect the consequential amendment in the written statement on 06.08.2005. The petitioner, however, did nothing in the matter. The plaintiff- Society examined its Secretary and also examined other witnesses. Thereafter. applications were filed by the petitioner for recalling the witness of the plaintiff and defendant no.23. The petitioner cross-examined these witnesses. The petitioner 2 also entered into the witness box. For the first time on 06.10.2009, the petitioner filed an application for permission for consequential amendment in written statement. The application was, however, rightly rejected by the trial Court. The trial Court held that there was nothing stated in the application to show that in spite of due diligence the petitioner could not have amended the written statement on the amendment of the plaint by the plaintiff. The only reason stated in the application was that the consequential amendment was not made due to inadvertence and due to oversight of the then counsel. This was surely not a sufficient reason or for that matter a reason to permit the petitioner to consequentially amend the written statement specially when the trial had commenced and almost entire oral evidence was tendered in the case. Only the cross-examination of the petitioner remained to be concluded and at this stage, the trial Court rightly found that the prayer made in the application filed by the petitioner could not have been granted as it would cause serious prejudice to the parties to the suit, specially when the suit was filed in the year 1983. The order passed by the Joint Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nagpur on 05.11.2009 is just and reasonable and calls for no interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. 3 The writ petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE