80-WP-16477-2023.docx IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 16477 OF 2023 Savita Ramdas Pandule … Petitioner Vs. Dadaso Alias Gena Sukhdeo … Respondent Bhale and Another Mr. Bhalchandra S. Shinde for the Petitioner. CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J. DATE : 13th NOVEMBER 2025 ORDER : 1. This petition is filed by the original defendant to challenge the order passed by the trial court permitting the petitioner to carry out amendment to the plaint. The suit is filed simplicitor for injunction. After the examination-in-chief was filed by the plaintiff and before commencement of the cross-examination, the plaintiff filed an application to seek amendment to the plaint for giving better particulars and clarification in the plaint. 2. Since the proposed amendment was for bringing better particulars and further explanation to the original pleadings the trial court has permitted the amendment. The nature of 1/3 rrpillai RAJESHWARI RAMESH PILLAI Digitally signed by RAJESHWARI RAMESH PILLAI Date: 2025.11.13 21:08:45 +0530 80-WP-16477-2023.docx the suit is not changed due to the amendment. Since the application was filed after the examination-in-chief was filed, the trial court has allowed the application by imposing cost to compensate the delay. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the plaintiff was aware about the particulars which are sought to be added. the application is filed at a belated stage after the trial commenced. He submits that since due diligence is not shown the application cannot be allowed after the trial has commenced. 4. The trial court has considered the aspect of the stage of filing application for amendment and considering the stage at which the application was filed, the trial court has also imposed costs. A perusal of the original pleadings and the proposed amendment shows that the proposed amendment is for better particulars and in the form of explanation. Since the cross- examination has not commenced, no prejudice would be caused to the defendant if the amendment is allowed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that additional written statement to the amended plaint is already filed and the suit has proceeded. 2/3 80-WP-16477-2023.docx 5. If such amendment is not allowed at this stage, it is likely to cause prejudice to the plaintiff. The trial court has considered all the aspects while permitting the prayer for amendment. Hence, I do not find any reason to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution to interfere with the impugned order. 6. The petition is therefore dismissed. [GAURI GODSE, J.] 3/3