JUDGMENT :

N.B. Suryawanshi, J.

1. Present petition is filed by the Original Defendant No. 2 challenging the order below (Exhibit 77) passed by the learned trial Court thereby allowing amendment application filed by the plaintiff/respondent No. 1.

2. Facts in nut-shell leading to this petition are as follows:-

The plaintiff/respondent No. 1 instituted Special Civil Suit No. 794/2012 seeking declaration that the power of attorney dated 08.04.2008 executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant, appended with sale-deeds dated 28.12.2010 and 14.10.2011 is fraudulent, shame, bogus and cancel the same. A declaration that both the sale-deeds are executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of the defendant No. 2 are void-ab-initio and were created by using forged power of attorney. The suit was resisted by the defendant No. 1 by filing written statement. During the pendency of the suit, on 11.4.2013 a Memorandum of Understanding (for short "MOU"), was entered into between the plaintiffs and the defendants. On the basis of the said MOU, the defendant No. 1 filed application Exhibit 26 for bringing the MOU on record, and for passing decree in terms of the MOU. The original defendant No. 2/petitioner opposed the said application. The learned trial Court rejected application Exhibit 26 vide order dated 2.4.2016.

3. The defendant No. 1 challenged the order passed below Exhibit 26 in Writ Petition No. 2461/2017. This Court disposed of Writ Petition No. 2461/2017, directing that MOU be taken on record of the civil suit. This Court, considering that there was dispute between the parties about the terms of the MOU observed that the trial Court will have to examine the rival contentions and the petitioners/plaintiff will be at liberty to adduce the evidence. Hence did not consider prayer clause-III of application Exhibit No. 26. The civil suit was directed to be decided till 30.11.2019.

4. Original defendant No. 2 filed application Exhibit No. 38 under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure for rejection of plaint for want of cause of action. The said application was opposed by plaintiff. The learned trial Court vide order dated 17.7.2017 rejected the application Exhibit No. 38. The said rejection was impugned by the defendant No. 2 in Civil Revision Application No. 29/2018. The learned trial Court framed issues on 06.02.2019 and the suit was fixed for evidence.

5. This Court disposed of Civil, Revision Application No. 29/2018 by modifying the impugned order thereby leaving the contentions raised in application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure open of the trial Court to decide after the parties adduced evidence. In respect of the submission of the learned counsel for, the plaintiff that "the objections raised in the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure are not supported by the pleadings", this Court observed that "needless to say, the trial Court would examine and decide the said submission on merits". The original plaintiff/respondent No. 1 filed application Exhibit No. 55 for amendment of plaint, which was allowed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 19.09.2019.

6. On 01.10.2019, the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 filed affidavit of his examination-in-chief. On 16.10.2019, the learned trial Court framed additional issues. Thereafter, the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 on 22.10.2019 filed application Exhibit No. 77 under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Order 8 Rule 9 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for permission to amend the plaint. The said application was opposed by the defendant No. 2 stating that since the trial has commenced, the application is not maintainable. The learned Trial Court, however, was pleased to allow the amendment application at Exhibit No. 77. The said order is impugned in the present petition.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent No. 1/caveator. Perused the grounds raised in