1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR. Writ Petition No. 1328 of 2008 (Hirachand Domaji Behaniya Vs. State Bank of India & ors.) Appeal District : Application No. of 200 Writ petition - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's Orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. Raju Dhoble, Adv. For petitioner. Ms. Arpana Jambhulkar Adv. For the respondent no.1. CORAM : Smt. Vasanti A. Naik, J. DATE : 8 th October, 2008 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order passed by the Civil Judge, Sr. Dn., Nagpur, on 7/12/2007, rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for amendment of the written statement. A suit was filed by the State Bank of India against the petitioner for recovery of amount as the petitioner had failed to repay the loan. After the plaintiff Bank had tendered the oral evidence and it was the turn of the defendants to tender oral evidence, an application under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of the 2 written statement was filed. It was stated in the proposed amendment that the petitioner was not in a position to repay the agricultural loan and as per the scheme formulated by the Government of Maharashtra after the suicides of farmers, some directions were issued to the Bank to waive the loans and also specific directions were given for not insisting on recovery of amount due to the Banks from the farmers. The prayer made in the amendment application was strongly opposed by the plaintiff. It was stated by the plaintiff that the amendment was neither necessary nor useful for just and proper trial. It was stated that the plaintiff's evidence was closed and by allowing the amendment application, the nature of the suit would be changed. The petitioner, therefore, sought for the dismissal of the amendment application. I have perused the application for amendment, the reply filed thereto as also the order passed by the Civil Judge, Sr. Dn., Nagpur, on 7/12/2007. No fault can be found with the order 3 passed by the trial Court on 7/12/2007, as the plaintiff had closed its evidence and the defendant had sought ample time for leading his evidence. The trial Court further observed that the defendant/petitioner was not able to produce any circular, policy decision or resolution on the basis of which the amendment was proposed. It appears to the trial Court from the arguments of the learned counsel that the amendment was made pursuant to the news published in the newspaper and the Court rightly held that at that stage of the proceedings, the proposed amendment cannot be a defence to the claim of the plaintiff. On perusal of the amendment application, it is found that no reason whatsoever is stated in the amendment application for not incorporating the pleadings in the proposed amendment, in the written statement filed by the defendants. It is also not stated in the amendment application as to what prompted the defendant to file the amendment application at the belated stage when the matter was at the stage of tendering of the oral evidence of the defendants. Though the 4 application was filed on 17/11/2007, nothing was stated in the amendment application to show as to when the Government of Maharashtra had formulated the Scheme and as to when the instructions were issued by the Government and when the petitioner became aware of the same. In the absence of any such statement in the amendment application, the trial Court rightly rejected the amendment application at the belated stage specially when the plaintiff had closed its evidence and did not have any opportunity to tender any evidence in rebuttal. The impugned order does not suffer from any jurisdictional error so as to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Writ petition is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE RMP