MP -2- WP5795-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5795 OF 2010 Mr. Parasnis K. Balkrishna .. Petitioner Versus Smt. Mangala M. Rangole and others .. Respondents Mr. Uday Warunjikar for the Petitioner. Mr. G. S. Godbole with Ms. Pallavi Dabholkar for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. THURSDAY, JANUARY 27, 2011 P. C. : By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 21st April 2010 vide which the application filed by the present petitioner for amendment of the written statement came to be rejected. 2. Mr. Warunjikar, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that the learned Trial Court has grossly erred in rejecting the application. He submits that by way of amendment, the petitioner only wanted to bring on record the plea regarding comparative hardship and the proposal which the petitioner wanted to give in reply to the case of the plaintiff regarding bonafide requirement. 3. The present suit is filed by the plaintiff for possession of the premises on the ground of bonafide requirement. Admittedly, the issues were framed. The affidavit in lieu of examination in chief by the plaintiff was filed and the cross-examination of the plaintiff was also MP -2- WP5795-10 over. It is, thus, clear that the suit has advanced much further from the stage of commencement of trial. 4. The application has been rejected by the learned Trial Court in view of the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Vidyabai and others Vs. Padmalata and another reported in 2009 (2) SCC 409. It can clearly be seen that the order rejecting the application is on the basis of the legal position as is settled by the Apex Court. 5. In that view of the matter, no case is made out for interference. Hence rejected. (B.R. GAVAI, J)