1` IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Letters Patent Appeal No. 499/2010 in W.P.No. 1156/2010 Sitaram Kashinath Hedaoo vs. Hussain Gambhira Chouhan and another. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's or directions and Registrar's orders. Orders. Mr. P.V.Kaore, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. N. Phadnis, Advocate for Respondents 1 and 2. CORAM : S.A.BOBDE & MRS. V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ DATE : 11.01.2011 This letters patent appeal is directed against the Judgment of the learned Single Judge upholding the order of the trial court dismissing amendment to the plaint. The plaintiff filed a suit for eviction. In the suit in paragraph no. 3, he stated that defendants 1 and 2 have also constructed a house on some portion of the vacant land. The suit was filed in the year 2004. Thereafter, trial proceeded; nine witnesses have been examined and after the matter was closed for Judgment, the plaintiff has moved the application seeking a change in the description of the property. By the present proposed amendment, the plaintiff is seeking to add the boundaries of the property as well as the area of certain rooms said to have been constructed by the defendants. Even though the nature of the suit 2` may not undergo change if the amendment is allowed, there is no reason why the party should be allowed to move such amendment application after such a long period. It is clear that the plaintiff has not exercised due diligence as required under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In the result, we see no reason to interfere with the Judgment of the learned Single Judge. The letters patent appeal is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE patle