1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.1158 OF 2011. (SHYAM K. YADAO AND ANR..VS..MANGANESE ORE INDIA LTD.) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. J.J. Chandurkar, Advocate for Petitioners. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : MARCH 07, 2011. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. By this petition the petitioners impugn the order passed by the trial Court on 06.12.2010 rejecting an application filed by the petitioner for amendment of the written statement. On hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner/ defendant No.1 and on perusal of the pleadings as also the proposed amendment along with the impugned order dated 06.12.2010, it appears that the trial Court was perfectly justified in rejecting the amendment application. The trial Court held that the petitioner/ defendant No.1 had not shown due diligence in the matter and belatedly filed the amendment application after the evidence of the plaintiff was closed and when the suit was pending before the trial Court for more than 15 years. The trial Court held and rightly so that no ground had been made out by the petitioners for belatedly filing the amendment application when the matter was fixed for adducing the evidence of the defendant No.1. There was nothing in the amendment application to show that the amendment application could not have been moved before the Court with due diligence or before the trial 2 commenced. In such circumstances, the trial Court has rightly rejected the amendment application filed by the petitioner/ defendant No.1. Since the order passed by the trial Court is just and proper the same calls for no interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. The writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE RR..