1 wp65.11 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 65 OF 2011 _____________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | appearances, Court's | Court’s or Judge’s orders orders or | directions and | Registrar's orders | _____________________________________________________________________ Mr. A.P. Bhandari, Advocate for the petitioner. 1. Learned counsel strenuously urges that after issues were framed, the amendment to plaint has been allowed though there is total absence of `due diligence' on the part of respondent-plaintiff. He states that the plaint as filed is in Marathi and proposed amendment is in English. The application under Order 6 Rule 17 is not supported by verification at all and it is not signed by the party. 2. With the assistance of learned Counsel, I verified the papers. The respondent-plaintiff earlier had filed suit and in that suit, the impugned amendment allowed here, was already allowed. Because of absence of jurisdiction in that Court, suit was withdrawn and the present suit came to be filed. In that suit again similar amendment 2 wp65.11 was sought. 3. Though, there is substance in the contention that application is not verified or signed by the parties, in these facts, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate any prejudice. I am not inclined to interfere in the Writ Petition. 4. Learned Counsel has pointed out that the trial has already started and the question about stage at which the trial can be said to have started is already referred to Larger Bench by Nagpur Bench of this Court. This aspect is not very relevant here. 5. In view of the facts already noted above, I do not find any substance in Writ Petition. Hence, Writ Petition is rejected. No costs. (B.P. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE. 10.01.2011 gas/wp65.11