1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 5505/2011 (RAMKUMAR RAMSEWAK GUPTA VERSUS SHAILESH RADHYESHAYMJI GUPTA & ANOTHER) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri U.P. Deopujari, counsel for the petitioner. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : DECEMBER 5 , 2011 . By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order passed by the trial Court on 13.07.2011 allowing an amendment application filed by the plaintiffs. The respondents are the original plaintiffs. They had filed a suit against the petitioner for eviction, possession and recovery of arrears of rent. The petitioner-defendant filed the written statement and denied the claim of the respondents. On 30.08.2010, the petitioner filed an application for amendment of the written statement. The trial Court allowed the same. After the same was allowed, the respondents-plaintiffs also filed an amendment application for amendment of plaint on 23.02.2011 seeking to bring on record some pleas in view of the amendment to the written statement, which was granted on 16.11.2010. Though the petitioner-defendant opposed the application for amendment, the trial Court granted the prayer made in the amendment application by the order dated 13.07.2011. 2 There is nothing wrong with the order passed by the trial Court on 13.07.2011 allowing the amendment application filed by the respondents for amendment of the plaint. The amendment was sought to the plaint for clarifying the facts already on record and was consequential to the amendment made by the defendant-petitioner to the written statement after his amendment application was allowed on 16.11.2010. The submission made on behalf of the petitioner that in view of the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the trial Court ought not have allowed the amendment application as the plaintiffs-respondents had filed the evidence on affidavit and the trial had commenced, is liable to be rejected for the reason that the amendment sought by the plaintiffs-respondents was consequential to the amendment of the written statement by the defendant. The defendant had also amended the written statement after the commencement of the trial and since the amendment sought by the plaintiffs was a consequential amendment, the same could not have been rejected by resorting to the provisions of Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Since the amendment was a consequential amendment, the trial Court rightly allowed the same by the impugned order dated 13.07.2011, even after the commencement of the trial. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE