:1: 1284.09-WP bgp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1284 OF 2009 M/s.Ngadi Land Development ..Petitioner Vs. Pimpri Chinchwad New Town Development Authority & Ors. ..Respondents Mr.Madhav J. Jamdar for Petitioner. Mr.S.P.Thorat for Respondent Nos.3 and 4. CORAM :- B.R.GAVAI,J. DATE :- APRIL 25, 2011 P.C. 1. When the matter was called out on earlier occasion, though respondent No.5 who is contesting respondent was duly served and represented through a Counsel, none appeared and as such the matter was kept today so as to enable the said respondent to appear. Today also, when the matter is called out in the morning as well as in the afternoon session, none appears for respondent No.5 though one Mulani & Co. has filed appearance on their behalf. 2. The present petition challenges the order dated 17th September, 2008 vide which the application filed by the present petitioner for amendment of the plaint came to be rejected. 3. Admittedly, only issues are framed in the suit. Affidavit in lieu of examination in chief is yet to be filed. It can thus be seen that the trial is yet to commence. It is a settled law that the Courts are required to take liberal view in grant of amendments and the only rider is in view of proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC. The said proviso would not be applicable in the facts of :2: 1284.09-WP the present case. Upon perusal of the proposed amendment, it cannot be said, that it is not related to the dispute involved in the suit. 4. In that view of the matter, I find that the learned Trial Court has erred in rejecting the application. Rule is, therefore, made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). 5. Taking into consideration the facts of the present case, the learned Trial Court is directed to expedite the hearing of the suit. (B.R.GAVAI, J.)