1 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.3898 of 2010 M/s.Lachhiram Chudiram ... Petitioner versus The Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. ... Respondent ... Mr. L.V.Jain for the petitioner. Mr.S.N.Vaishnawa i/b M/s.N.N.Vaishnawa & Co. for the respondent CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATED : 7th July 2010 P.C. 1. Heard. 2. By this petition, petitioner challenges the order dated 17 February 2010 passed by the Small causes Court, Mumbai rejecting the application made by the petitioner defendant for amendment of the written statement. Admittedly, application for filing the written statement was filed after the commencement of the trial. Proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 says that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the parties could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. Learned counsel 2 for the petitioner was unable to point out that the matter sought to be added by amendment could not have been pleaded before the commencement of the trial. He only submitted that the facts sought to be stated in the amendment are admitted facts and had already come in evidence in the cross examination of a witness. In my view, unless the case falls under the proviso, the amendment cannot be allowed after commencement of the trial. As regards the contention that facts have already come on record in evidence, the Court no doubt would apply the that no amount of evidence can be looked into in the absence of the pleadings. With these observations, writ petition is rejected summarily. (D.G. KARNIK,J.)