1 WP No.3301/11 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3301 of 2011 Arvind Dattaram Ghadge ... Petitioner versus Municipal Corporation of Gr.Mumbai & ors.... Respondents ... Mr.J.J. Shah for the petitioner. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J DATED : 6th June 2011 P.C. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. By this petition, petitioner challenges the order dated 28 February 2011 passed by the City Civil Court, Gr.Mumbai, Dindoshi Sub-Division partly rejecting the application of the petitioner (plaintiff) for amendment. 3. The plaintiff is a tenant. He has filed a suit against the respondent no.1 municipal corporation as well as respondent no.2, landlord challenging a notice issued by the respondent no.1 under section 351 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act. He sought an amendment of the plaint. His application for amendment so far 2 WP No.3301/11 it relates to substitution of the suit number which was a typing error has been allowed. However, the other amendments have been rejected. In my view, no exception can be taken to the rejection of the application for an amendment inasmuch as the application for amendment was filed after commencement of the trial i.e to say after the petitioner plaintiff had filed his affidavit of evidence. Under proviso to Order 6 Rule 17, the application for amendment cannot be allowed after the commencement of the trial unless the court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter sought to be raised by amendment before the commencement of the trial. Counsel for the petitioner was unable to point out that the point sought to be raised by amendment could not be raised before the commencement of the trial. In the circumstances, there is no merit in the writ petition which is hereby rejected summarily. (D.G.KARNIK, J)