1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.3695 OF 2011 (Harishankar Ramkisanji Agrawal vs. Suresh Sadashivrao Shahare and another) __________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Shri Kavimandan, Advocate for the petitioner. ------- CORAM : R.M. SAVANT, J. DATED : AUGUST 3, 2011 The above petition takes exception to the order dated 18/6/2011 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Achalpur whereby the Application for amendment of the plaint filed by the petitioner/original plaintiff came to be rejected. The petitioner is the original plaintiff, who has filed the suit for possession in respect of suit property depicted by alphabets 'CDEF”, which is in possession of the defendants. The plaintiff sought to move an amendment application, by which amendment he sought to show the source of his title having obtained by adoption. 2 The suit is of the year 2005. The issues have been framed on 19/12/2006. The plaintiff's evidence is already closed and the amendment application was filed at the stage when the defendants' evidence was being recorded. The trial Court on the ground that the plaintiff is now seeking to introduce a new theory at the fag end of the trial, has rejected the application. The trial Court has also recorded a finding that beyond blaming the earlier Advocate, the plaintiff has not satisfied the test of due diligence, as to why the amendment application could not be moved earlier. The learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks to rely upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Usha Devi v. Rijwan Ahmad and others (AIR 2008 SC 1147). The facts in the said case were that by way of amendment, description of the suit property was sought to be correctly given. Such is not a case in the present matter. In that view of the matter, reliance placed on the said judgment of the Apex Court is misplaced. Having considered the reasons given by the trial Court, which in my view, are germane to 3 Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, no case for interdiction is made out. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. JUDGE khj