JUDGMENT - KHANDEPARKAR R.M.S., J.:---Heard the learned Advocates for the parties. Rule. By consent, rule made returnable forthwith.

2. The petitioner challenges the order dated 19th April, 2002 rejecting the application for amendment of the written statement filed by the petitioner. By way of amending the written statement the petitioner has sought to take additional ground of defence in the suit. The Court below has rejected the application on the ground that the proposed amendment is totally a new case.

3. At the out set the learned Advocate for the respondent referring to the amended Rule 17 of Order VI has submitted that in the absence of the petitioner disclosing sufficient cause for delay in filing the application for amendment to the written statement, there is no case for interference in the impugned order and the petition should be dismissed in limine.

4. By the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, the 2002, the Rule 17 of Order VI has been amended whereby proviso is added to the original rule and the said proviso reads thus:

"Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document