CHANDRASHEKHAR Vs. BALKRISHNA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri P.D. Randive, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Shri M.B. Naidu, learned Advocate for the respondent Nos. 6 and 7.

(2.) The petitioner-defendant has challenged the order passed by the trial Court rejecting the application filed by him under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking permission to amend the written statement.

(3.) It is undisputed that the trial of civil suit has commenced. The application filed by the petitioner seeking permission to amend the written statement does not show that inspite of due diligence, the petitioner could not bring on the record the facts sought to be brought on the record by the proposed amendment. In view of this, the learned trial Judge does not have the jurisdiction to consider and allow the amendment application, in view of the bar created by the proviso below Rule 17 of Order VI of the Code of Civil Procedure, as held in the judgment given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vidyabai and others vs. Padmalatha and another reported in , 2009(4) Mh.L.J. 30.