1 WP 5918/10 abs FARAD CONTINUATION IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5918 OF 2010 ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Orders Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's Orders Mr. S.A. Rajeshirke for the petitioner. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 9TH AUGUST 2010 P.C. : 1. Heard. 2. By this petition, the petitioner (defendant no.3) challenges the order dated 5 April 2010 passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sangli, allowing the respondents’ application for amendment of the plaint. 3. The only ground on which the order is challenged before me is that there was a substantial delay in making the application for 2 WP 5918/10 amendment which has not been satisfactorily explained and, therefore, the amendment should not have been allowed. 4. It is settled principle of law that the delay alone cannot be a ground for dismissal of an application for amendment. Amendments are allowed even at the stage of the second appeal. In the case of Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal v. National Building Material Supply, AIR 1969 1267, the Supreme Court has held that the rules of procedure are handmaid of justice. Howsoever negligent the plaintiff may be initially, the amendment can be allowed if that does not cause injustice to the other side. Consequently, there is no merit in the writ petition which is hereby rejected summarily. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)