1. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order passed on 9/12/2013, rejecting the application of the petitioners/defendants to amend the pleadings in the written statement filed by him in Regular Civil Suit No.8/2010, which is presently pending before the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division at Canacona.

2. I have heard Shri Nitin Sardessai, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Shri S.S. Kantak, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents.

3. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent.

4. The main ground of contest as canvassed by the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the test of due diligence has to be applied with reference to the capacity and understanding of the party of the law which cannot be compared with the understanding of law of a lawyer. He submits that it was all throughout the case of the petitioners that the copy of the mortgage deed, inspite due diligence on their part, could not be obtained earlier and, therefore, they were not aware exactly of the terms and conditions of the mortgage. He submits that later on when petitioner no.1 could obtain a copy of the same, the petitioners could know the terms and conditions of the