1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 5342 OF 2009 (Shankarlal Radhakishan Choudhary vs. Arun Ramkrishana Gawande) 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. FEBRUARY 25, 2010. This Court has issued notice for final disposal. Accordingly, I have heard finally Shri Chandurkar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Ghare, learned counsel for the respondent. Shri Chandurkar, learned counsel points out that by the impugned order, after the affidavit of examination-in--chief was filed by the present petitioner, the amendment to written statement has been allowed without recording any reason as to why the same could not have been carried out earlier. He points out that all dates mentioned there are prior to affidavit of examination-in-chief filed by the petitioner. Shri Ghare, learned counsel, on the other hand, states that these developments are after the institution of suit and mostly taken from the records of Court. He states that those developments show the conduct of the petitioner - plaintiff and, therefore, found essential to be pleaded. 2 After hearing respective counsel, I found that the amendment proposed is in relation to events which have transpired prior to filing of affidavit of examination-in-chief and there is no reason put forth as to why those events could not be placed on record before filing of that affidavit. Not only this, the events are mostly Court orders and hence already on record. The formal amendment to written statement to court orders is, therefore, not necessary. At this stage, Shri Ghare, learned counsel has pointed out that one of the events mentioned in para 9-B is dated 04.07.2009 i.e. after the said affidavit. In this situation, it is apparent that the grant of leave to amendment in relation to events/ instances prior to 04.07.2009 and 11.06.2009 is unwarranted. The application at Exh. 47, therefore, deserves to be rejected to that extent. The impugned order dated 24.08.2009 passed below Exh. 47 is accordingly modified and only portion of para 9-B dealing with instance dated 04.07.2009 i.e. last sub-para of proposed amendment is allowed to be added by amendment in written statement. The petitioner – plaintiff is at liberty to file additional affidavit of examination-in-chief, if necessary and to amend his pleadings in accordance with law in this respect. It is clarified that if the respondent – 3 defendant lead evidence only in relation to subsequent Court orders, the same shall not be and cannot be objected to by the petitioner – plaintiff. Writ Petition is disposed of. Rule accordingly. However, there shall be no order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.