FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 4893/2008 [United India Insurance Co. ..vs.. Sau. Radha Ramvilas Porwal & others] - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri Kukdey, advocate for petitioner Smt. V..G. Khadekar, advocate for R-1 & R-2 Shri JJ Chandurkar, advocate for respondent no.4 CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : NOVEMBER 19, 2009. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the impugned order along with the application for amendment of the written statement, it appears that the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Amravati did not commit any error in rejecting the application by the order dated 3.7.2008. It is not in dispute that the claimants had already tendered their evidence in this case and closed their side. After the evidence of the claimants was recorded, the application was moved by the petitioner for permission to amend the written statement, so as to incorporate in the pleading that the driver of the vehicle by name Amit Bhoot was driving the vehicle in a drunken condition. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, rightly dismissed the amendment application, as the trial had already commenced and the evidence of the claimants’ witnesses was also recorded. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal held that the petitioner was not diligent in raising the plea which was sought to be raised by the proposed amendment. The Tribunal further held and rightly so that there was nothing on record to show that inspite of exercise of due diligence, the petitioner could not have raised the plea at the initial stage, or within a reasonable time. The order passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Amravati, dated 3.7.2008, is just and proper and calls for no interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. The judgment reported in AIR 2007 SC 2511 relied by the counsel for the petitioner can not be made applicable to the facts of this case. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE SMP