1 pps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATEJURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7295 OF 2011 Rajendra Balkrishna Karmalkar (Since deceased through L.Rs) Shweta Rajendra Karmalkar & Ors. ...Petitioners Versus The proposed Rawalnath Housing Sanstha & Others ...Respondents Mr.M.R.Suryawanshi for the Petitioners Mr.S.H.Salunkhe for the Respondent No.2 CORAM:- R.Y.GANOO, J. DATED:- 9th SEPTEMBER, 2011. P.C. 1. Petitioners filed Regular Civil Suit No.22 of 2004 in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ajra, District Kolhapur. The suit came to be filed praying that orders of injunction should be granted. Subsequently the petitioner filed application at Exhibit 165 praying that the petitioners be permitted to amend the plaint. The said application was decided by the learned Judge on 24th December, 2 2010. He rejected the same. Against the said order dated 24th December, 2010 the petitioners have filed the present petition. 2. I have heard learned Counsels on both sides. The impugned order mentions that as many as four witnesses have been examined by the plaintiffs and the suit is at the stage of recording of evidence. The suit came to be instituted in the year 2004. Hence, so far as the provisions of amendment of the plaint, the court is required to see whether the plaintiffs can come out of the bar of the proviso. This very aspect has been considered by the learned trial Court and by the Order dated 24.12.2010. He has rejected the application for amendment. 3. I have considered the submission of learned Advocate for the petitioners as also perused the entire judgment. The learned Judge has rendered a finding that the petitioners are unable to show as to why indulgence should be shown to them particularly when the matter is at the stage of recording of evidence. 4. The observations of the learned Judge are right. Learned Advocate 3 Mr.Suryawanshi appearing on behalf of the petitioners relied upon the judgment in the case of Baldev Singh & Others vs. Manohar Singh & Others reported in (2006) 6 SCC 498. Learned Advocate Mr. Suryawanshi relied upon paragraph 17 of the said judgment in support of his case to show that the impugned order is wrong. The Supreme Court has referred to the factual aspect of the matter so far as the one which was pending. This is very much clear on the basis of the following words appearing in paragraph 17: “ For this reason, we have examined the records and find that, in fact, the trial has not yet commenced. It appears from the record that the parties have file their documentary evidence in the suit. From the record, it also appears that the parties have yet to file their documentary evidence in the suit. From the record it also appears that the suit was not on the verge of conclusion as found by the High Court and the trial court” The argument advanced by learned Advocate for the petitioners that the judgment would support him, cannot be accepted. In the present case four witnesses have been examined, which will clearly go to show that the defendants have disclosed their defence. I am not inclined to take a different view than what is taken by the learned 4 trial Court. There is no need to interfere with the finding recorded by the trial court. Hence following order is passed. ORDER Petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs. (R.Y.GANOO, J.)