:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8034 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 8034 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 8034 OF 2008 Suresh Damodar Shirgoipkar ..Petitioner versus Pushpaben Bhagwandas Ladhani ..Respondent Mr. V. S. Gokhale for the Petitioner. Mr. S. S. Tambekar for the Respondent. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. DATE : 13TH APRIL, 2009 DATE : 13TH APRIL, 2009 DATE : 13TH APRIL, 2009 P.C. P.C. P.C. . Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2. The petitioner has challenged the order of rejecting his application for amendment and the order dismissing his revision upholding rejection of his amendment application. 3. During the course of the trial in his cross examination, the petitioner admitted that he did not have sufficient money to do the construction which :2: is the subject matter of the suit. After he made this admission, he moved an application for amendment to the effect that he has sufficient funds to make the construction. This application was rejected by the trial court. In revision the Court observed that the amendment is not necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties and rejected the revision. 4. Mr. Gokhale, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the amendment proposed the introduction of a factual situation since in fact the petitioner has sufficient money. It is however obvious that the petitioner had moved the amendment application to undo the effect of the admission and also since his own witness i.e. the Officer from the Bank has stated that 40% of the finance has to be that of borrower. 5. It is clear that the application for amendment is preferred, after the trial has commenced and after commencement of evidence. It is not permissible to amend the pleadings at this stage in view of the Proviso to Order VI Rule 17. That Rule reads as follows: :3: "17. Amendment of pleadings.- Amendment of pleadings.- Amendment of pleadings.- The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. Provided 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 party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial." In this view of the matter, there is no merit in the petition, which is hereby dismissed. Rule disposed of. (S. A. BOBDE, J.) (S. A. BOBDE, J.) (S. A. BOBDE, J.)