IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL APPEAL APPEAL NO. 802 OF 2007 NO. 802 OF 2007 NO. 802 OF 2007 IN CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.857 OF 2007 IN SUIT NO.1204 OF 1995 Bansidhar Annaji Bhakad ... Appellant Vs. Ismail Yusuf College ... Respondents Jogeshwari, Mumbai Mr. Uday Bobde i/by S.A. Tavate for Appellant. Ms. Geeta Shastri, AGP for respondents. CORAM CORAM CORAM : R.M.S. KHANEPARKAR, & : R.M.S. KHANEPARKAR, & : R.M.S. KHANEPARKAR, & P.B. P.B. P.B. MAJMUDAR, JJ. MAJMUDAR, JJ. MAJMUDAR, JJ. DATE DATE DATE : 28TH APRIL, 2008 : 28TH APRIL, 2008 : 28TH APRIL, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. :- :- :- 1. Heard. 2. This appeal is filed against the order dated 13th August, 2007 in Chamber Summons No. 857 of 2005 in Suit No.1204 of 1995. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge has allowed the application for amendment to the written statement and has permitted the production of the documents. 2 3. Challenged to the impugned order is on two grounds. Firstly, nothing prevents the respondents from producing the documents in the course of cross-examination of the plaintiff and secondly that the application was filed after commencement of trial and therefore the learned Single Judge could not have exercised the discretion in favour of the respondents to allow such application. Reliance is placed in the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamilnadu Vs. Union of India reported in A.I.R. 2005 Supreme Court 3353 A.I.R. 2005 Supreme Court 3353 A.I.R. 2005 Supreme Court 3353, while drawing attention to Paragraph 27 of the said decision. 4. It cannot be disputed that the law on the point of allowing or granting the amendment to the pleadings is very clear and it has been made further clear by the Apex Court in Salem Advocate Bar Association (supra) that the Courts should be slow in exercising the discretion in favour of the applicant in such cases when the application for amendment is made after commencement of trial. 5. In the case in hand, it is not in dispute 3 that the proposed amendment relates to the documents which were already relied upon but not produced and at the same time, it is also not disputed by the appellant- plaintiff that the documents in question can be produced in the course of cross-examination of the plaintiff. In such circumstances, we find no justification for interference in the discretion exercised by the learned Single Judge in allowing the application for amendment and permitting production of documents, even after commencement of trial. Besides, the appellant has already been compensated by way of imposition of costs of Rs.5,000/- against the respondents. 6. As regards the contention regarding the delay, there is absolutely no substance. Admitting the appeal to deal with the question as to whether the amendment ought to have been allowed or not by the learned Court, in the facts and circumstances of the case would virtually amount to further delaying the proceeding in the suit. It is not in dispute that already the amendment has been carried out and the appellant has ample opportunity to inspect the documents. 4 7. In such circumstances, therefore, we do not find any case for interference in the appeal. Therefore, appeals fails and hence it is summarily dismissed. 8. At the request of learned Advocate for the appellant, time to file further evidence in the form of affidavit, if any, by the plaintiff, in view of the amendment carried out is extended by another eight weeks. 9. Appeal stands disposed of. ( R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR, J.) R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR, J.) R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR, J.) ( P.B. MAJMUDAR, J.) P.B. MAJMUDAR, J.) P.B. MAJMUDAR, J.)