1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 79 OF 2010 (Chunnilal Murlidhar Achut vs. Mahadeorao C. Waratkar) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. JANUARY 28, 2010. Heard Shri Khajanchi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Kirti Kapse (Satpute), learned counsel for the respondents. The amendment application filed by the petitioner – plaintiff before commencement of his cross examination has been rejected by the trial Court after noticing that there is no sufficient explanation as to why amendment could not be filed earlier. The amendment sought relates to explanation of an endorsement of cancellation of agreement for sale between the parties. The suit filed by the petitioner – plaintiff was for specific performance. The endorsement of cancellation and the document was filed on record by the respondent – defendant along with written statement. Not only this, the earlier exchange of notice between parties also specifically referred to such cancellation. It is, therefore, apparent that the finding of trial Court that there is no just and sufficient reason for not seeking such amendment at the earliest and in any case before 2 commencement of trial cannot be said to be perverse or without jurisdiction. In application for amendment, only reason given was the petitioner – plaintiff was advised by his advocate to bring it on record. The reliance is sought to be placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Court in the case of Surendra Kumar Sharma vs. Makhan Singh, reported at (2009) 10 SCC 626, where mere delay has been held as not fatal in such situation. Here, the trial Court has not rejected the application only on the ground of delay but has found that there is no reasonable explanation for not moving the application before commencement of trial. I, therefore, find nothing wrong with the finding reached by the trial Court. Writ Petition is dismissed. However, it is open to the petitioner to challenge the said order of trial Court after final adjudication of suit, if contingency therefor arises. No order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.