1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 2579/2010. Ramesh Ambadas Bonde -: VERSUS :- Baliram Dashrath Ghule Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : JULY 27, 2010. Heard Shri V.D. Darne, learned Counsel for Petitioner/defendant. The Trial Court has rejected prayer to carry out amendment in written statement, on the ground that facts sought to be incorporated were within the knowledge of the petitioner/defendant since 1993 and there is no explanation why the amendment could not be effected earlier. Learned Counsel has pointed out that the delay is caused because earlier Advocate did not return the papers to petitioner / defendant and earlier Advocate did not raise appropriate defence. He has invited attention to complaint made by the petitioner before the trial Court, for that purpose. 2 Perusal of application for amendment shows that inadvertence is the only reason given. Thus reasons sought to be pressed into service by the learned Counsel before this Court was not before the Trial Court. By placing reliance upon the judgment of this Court reported at 2009 (4) All MR 763 (Twist Spin Industries .vrs. KMH Enterprises), the learned Counsel contends that inadvertence of Advocate cannot be the reason to deny such amendment and according to him incompetence of Advocate cannot also be the reason and it cannot be allowed to act to the prejudice of the present petitioner. The facts here clearly shows that in written statement there is no plea of money lending transaction and by amendment that plea is sought to be taken. I am therefore, not inclined to interfere in the matter at this stage. With liberty to present petitioner to challenge the impugned order passed by the trial Court after final adjudication, if occasion therefor arises, present Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. JUDGE Rgd.