S.A. Bobde, J.

1. 1. Heard Shri Mardikar, the learned counsel for the petitioner,and Shri Haq, the learned counsel for the respondents.

2. 2. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard by consent.

3. 3. This petition is directed against the order dated 26-3-2003 passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Akola by which the plaintiffs application for amendment is rejected.

4. 4. Mr. Mardikar, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitsthat the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Akola was not entitled to reject the application only on the ground the case was already closed for judgment. He submits that in view of Order VI, Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure an amendment can be allowed at any stage of suit.

5. Mr. Haq, the learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes this contention on the ground that the wordings empowering a Court to amend pleadings "at any

stage of the proceedings" do not apply to the situation where the suit has been heard and reserved for judgment. He relies on a judgment of learned Single Judge in Wasudeorao Babasaheb Sonone and Anr. v. Agananath Ramlalji Jugele, reported in 1985 Mh.LJ. 565. That was a case in which this Court took the view that even though the Order XVIII, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides for examination of witnesses at any stage as mentioned in explanation in Rule 2 of Order XVIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, it is clear that if an application in regard to hearing of the suit is to be filed, it must be filed before the hearing of the suit is completed and not thereafter. Undoubtedly, the judgment takes the above view, but that is in the context of Order XVIII, Rule 2 of Civil Procedure Code. The learned Single Judge has observed the words "at any stage" occurring in explanation Rule 2 of Order XVIII which is applicable to the State of Maharashtra. Therefore, it must be construed in the above setting of Rule 2 and the subject matter of Order XVIII.

5. 6. Order 18 Rule of the Code, at the relevant time read as follows :-

"2. (1) On the day fixed for the hearing of the suit or

on any other day to which the hearing is adjourned

the party having the right to begin shall state his case

and produce his evidence in support of the issues

which he is bound to prove.

.(2) The other party shall then state his case and produce his evidence (if any) and may then address the Court generally on the whole case.

.(3) The party beginning may then reply generally on the whole case. Explanation -- Nothing in this rule shall affect the jurisdiction of the Court, for reasons to the recorded in writing, to direct any party to examine

any witness at any stage.

(See Sub-section (1) of Section 97 of Central Act 104 of 1976 reproduced on page V ante.)

1. 7. It is clear that the subject matter of Order XVIII is different from the subject matter of Order VI. On the other hand, Mr. Mardikar, the learned counsel for the respondent relied on a judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in Laxman Marotirao Paunikar v. Keshaorao Rambhau Paunikar reported in 2000(4) Mh.L.J. 482, This case directly decides the entitlement of a plaintiff to amend the plaint after the case was closed for judgment. While considering the Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the learned Single Judge has considered the provisions of Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure and hold that the plaintiff is entitled to amend the pleadings "at any stage of the proceedings" and therefore, also after the matter is closed for orders.

2. 8. Mr. Haq, the learned counsel for the respondent relied on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1964 SC 993, Arjun Singh v. Mohindra Kumar and Ors., in which the matter fell for consideration under Order IX, Rule 7 of the Code. Order IX, Rule 7 of the Code which reads as follows:

"Where the Court has adjourned the hearing of the suit ex parte, and the defendant, at or before such hearing, appears and assigns good cause for his previo