1 WP 5906/10 abs FARAD CONTINUATION IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5906 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Orders Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's Orders Mr. S.G. Deshmukh i/b Mr. A.J. Kandarkar for the petitioners. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 2ND AUGUST 2010 P.C. : 1. Heard. 2. By this petition, the petitioners challenge the order dated 16 June 2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Jath, allowing the application of the respondents for amendment of the plaint. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners urged two grounds. Firstly, he submitted that the application for amendment was made very late. 2 WP 5906/10 After the decision of the suit there was an appeal and in the appeal the matter was remanded back. The application for amendment was made after remand. 4. In my view, delay alone cannot be a ground for rejection of an application for amendment. Amendment can be allowed at any stage of the trial or even at the stage of second appeal. The delay, unless it is such that it has created a vested right in favour of the defendant like the suit being barred by limitation or is likely to cause irretrievable injustice to the defendant, can be allowed even though it is late. Since the suit has been instituted prior to the amendment of 2002 and hence proviso added to Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not applicable to the case at hand. 5. Secondly, the counsel contended that by the amendment the respondents want to get 3 WP 5906/10 away with the admission contained in the original pleadings. By the amendment, the respondents are only seeking to amend the boundaries of western and northern side of the suit property. I do not see how the change amounts to obliterating of an admission. The respondents have explained the necessity of amendment in the boundaries. In the year 1986, the surveyor had mentioned the wrong boundaries. Fresh survey was undertaken in the year 1992 and new survey shows the correct boundaries. Second survey was done after the institution of the suit. Obviously therefore the petitioners could not have mentioned the boundaries as per the second survey when they instituted the suit. 6. There is no merit in the writ petition which is hereby rejected summarily. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)