1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 4550 of 2011 Sau. Sarubai Punaji Bawane ..VS.. Bhaurao Laxman Mojankar and others. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. N.A. Vyawahare, Adv. for the petitioner. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK J. DATE : 16 th September, 2011. Heard. By this petition, the petitioner impugns an order passed by the trial court on 16.4.2011 rejecting an application filed by the petitioner for amendment of the plaint. The petitioner is the original plaintiff. She had filed a suit for partition and separate possession. Though the suit was filed on 30.10.2003, the petitioner applied for permission to amend the plaint on 11.2.2011. By the said amendment, the petitioner wanted to challenge the alienations made by the respondents. The trial court, however, by an order dated 16.4.2011 rejected the amendment application. On a perusal of the plaint, the application for amendment and the impugned order dated 16.42011, it appears that the trial court was perfectly justified in rejecting the amendment application. The trial court noticed that the petitioner had categorically pleaded in para 3 of the plaint that after perusal of the 7/12 extract she became aware that the defendants/respondents had without effecting any partition 2 mutated their names in the 7/12 extract and also disposed of the suit field to the strangers. The trial court found that the petitioner was aware even prior to the filing of the suit in the year 2003 that the respondents had alienated a part of the suit property and in such circumstances, the trial court held that the petitioner could not be permitted to amend the plaint when the amendment application was filed belatedly on 11.2.2011, after the trial had commenced. The case of the petitioner that she became aware of the transaction after making due inquiry on knowing about the same after reading the written statement was rightly rejected by the trial court as the said reason did not appear to be genuine. Since the petitioner was well aware about the alienation of the suit property by the respondents, even before the institution of the suit, the petitioner could have as well amended the plaint with due diligence before the commencement of the trial in the year 2009-10. The impugned order dated 16.4.2011 does not suffer from any infirmity and cannot be interfered with. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE Hirekhan