1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION WRIT PETITION NO. 7203 OF 2009 with WRIT PETITION NO. 7212 OF 2009 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 7221 OF 2009 Sharad s/o. Narayan Kulkarni and others. .. petitioners Versus Shaikh Badruddin s/o. Shaikh Isa and others. .. Respondent. --- Mr. B.A. Darak, Advocate holding for Mr. A.M. Gadekar, Advocate for petitioners. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. DATE : 7th November, 2009. ORAL ORDER :- 2 1] By way of present petitions, the petitioner impugns the order dated 17th August, 2009, vide which the applications for amendment of the written statement in the respective suits, came to be rejected. 2] Shri Darak, learned counsel holding for Mr. Gadekar, counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned trial court has grossly erred in rejecting the application. It is submitted that the fact which is sought to be placed on record was not within the knowledge of the petitioner and after she came to know about the same, an application for amendment is filed. 3] The position of law after the amendment to CPC in 2002 is very clear. As held by the Apex Court in the case of “Vidyabai and others Vs. Padmalatha and another “ reported in (2009) 2 SCC 409, after the commencement of trial, a party cannot be permitted to amend the pleadings unless it satisfies the condition that the matter which is sought to be placed on record, could not be placed on record, inspite of exercise of due diligence, prior to commencement of the trial. 4] Leave aside giving any reasons in the application as to what due diligence was exercised by the petitioner, there is no whisper in the application, to the effect that inspite of exercise of due diligence, the matter which is sought to be placed on record, could not be placed on record, prior to commencement of trial. 5] Apart from the said aspect, it can clearly be seen that the matter which is sought to be placed on record now,could have been very well placed 3 on record prior to commencement of trial had the petitioner shown atleast some due diligence. 6] No case for interference is made out. The petition is devoid of substance and therefore, the same is dismissed with costs which are quantified At. Rs.1,000/- to be payable to the High Court Bar Library within a period of two weeks from today. On failure to deposits costs, suo motu contempt petition shall be initiated against the petitioner. [B.R. GAVAI,J.] Grt/-