1 wp5835.10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Writ Petition No. 5835 of 2010 Lingraj Balasaheb Swami ..Petitioner v/s. Sanjay Appasaheb Swami & ors. ..Respondents Mr. Suresh Gole for the petitioner. Mr. A.B. Borkar for the respondents. CORAM:- B.R. GAVAI, J. DATED :- MARCH 11, 2011. P.C. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2. Shri Borkar, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents waives notice. The petition impugns the order dated 31st July, 2009 thereby rejecting the application filed by the present petitioner for amendment of plaint. 3. The Respondents have filed the suit for damages against the petitioner. The suit is resisted by filing written-statement. On 16th August, 2006, an application was made by the petitioner for amendment to 2 wp5835.10.sxw the written-statement for impleading certain additional averments. By the impugned order the application is rejected. Hence, the present petition. 4. Shri Gole, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner submits that the learned Judge has grossly erred in rejecting the application. 5. Shri Borkar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that learned trial Court has rightly exercised the discretion vested in it and since the order passed by the learned trial Court is discretionary, no interference is warranted by this Court. 6. By now it is a settled principal of law that the Courts are required to take liberal view in grant of amendment. In the case of written-statement Courts are required to be more liberal in grant of amendment. The only rider is in view of proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 which requires that when an amendment is sought after the commencement of trial, the Court would not grant so if amendment could have been carried out prior to commencement of trial with exercise of due diligence. 7. Admittedly, on the date on which the application was filed and on the 3 wp5835.10.sxw date on which the impugned order was passed, the trial was yet to commence. In that view of the matter, provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 would not be applicable to the facts of the present case. 8. The perusal of amendment will reveal that it is amplification of case which is already made out by petitioner-defendant in his written-statement. In that view of the matter, the learned trial Judge has erred in rejecting the application. 9. The Petition is, therefore, allowed. Impugned order dated 31st July, 2009 is quashed and set aside. The application filed by the present petitioner for amendment of plaint below exhibit 15 is allowed. Amendment be carried out within a period of four weeks from today. 10. Rule made absolute with aforesaid observations with no order as to costs. 11. The parties to act on authenticated copy of the order. (B.R. GAVAI, J)