1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 1945 OF 2010. Yogendra raojibhai Patel and another -: VERSUS :- M/s. Metal Windows and others. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : JULY 14, 2010. Heard finally by consent of Shri K.N. Dadhe, learned counsel for petitioners and Ms. M.D. Bhambhwani, learned counsel for respondents. Suit before Small Causes Court pertains to eviction from open plot. Petitioners/ plaintiffs filed examination in chief and was also orally examined thereafter. The matter was then adjourned from January, 2009 for cross examination by the respondents/defendants. In December, 2009 the respondents / tenants moved an application seeking amendment and sought to introduce facts showing extent of land from which dispossession was sought and also the other 2 facts having bearing on issue of comparative hardship. Trial Court has rejected that application on 11.02.2010 and that order was then challenged in Revision under Section 34[2] of the Maharashtra Rent Act, 1999. The District Judge has allowed that revision on 02.03.2010. Shri Dadhe, learned counsel for petitioners contends that, absolutely no reasons are assigned as to why the application for amendment could not be moved earlier, and why it took time of about 11 months to move it after the matter was fixed for cross examination of petitioners / plaintiffs. Ms. Bhambhwani, learned counsel for respondents state that the counsel learnt the importance of these facts while preparing the matter for cross examination and hence application was filed. Learned counsel contends that as the facts sought to be introduced are relevant, a liberal view needs to be taken. Provisions of Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure are very clear. The learned counsel for petitioner has pointed out that the provisions of Maharashtra Rent Act, 1999 are not applicable in the present matter, because as eviction sought is from open plot. However, at this stage it is not necessary for this Court to go into the said 3 controversy. It is apparent that the application under Order VI Rule 17 as filed does not mention any reason for not moving that application earlier. The learned District Judge- 1, Nagpur has thus exercised the jurisdiction not available in the matter by allowing such application. The said judgment dated 02.03.2010 in Civil Revision No.11/2010 is therefore, quashed and set aside. The order of trial Court rejecting the application under Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.Code, dated 11.02.2010 is hereby restored. Writ Petition is allowed. Rule accordingly. No costs. JUDGE Rgd.