Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench (PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.), common judgment dated 04.12.2025 in twelve connected writ petitions (Nos. 5692, 5694, 5707, 5708, 5709, 5714, 5726, 5727, 5733, 5735, 5736, 5740 of 2025). The petitioners, original defendants in identical eviction suits filed by Shri Gajanan Maharaj Sansthan under Section 16(1)(c)(g) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 on the basis of registered leave-and-license agreements dated 28.06.2011, challenged the trial Court's order dated 21.08.2025 rejecting their applications under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC to amend their written statements by adding pleas of comparative hardship under Section 16(2) of the 1999 Act. Held: the applications were filed after commencement of trial, during the cross-examination of the plaintiff's second witness, even though the written statements had already been amended twice (Exhibits 59 and 62, orders dated 23.10.2019 and 29.11.2019); the defendants failed to show due diligence or any convincing reason for the delay, and the pleas concerned the pre-existing legal position, not subsequent developments. The issue of comparative hardship was not framed and can be considered with the eviction and possession issues, so the amendment was unnecessary for effective adjudication. The liberal-amendment position in State of Bihar v. Modern Tent House, (2017) 8 SCC 567 and Baldev Singh v. Manohar Singh, (2006) 6 SCC 498 was not disputed, but on these facts, with the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 attracted and prejudice likely to the plaintiff, those judgments were of no assistance; the applications also appeared to be attempts to prolong the suit, as with the defendants' earlier rejected Order XI Rule 14 applications whose challenge (W.P. No.5689 of 2025 and connected matters) was dismissed with costs on 28.11.2025. No indulgence was warranted under Article 227 of the Constitution of India; writ petitions dismissed with no order as to costs and Rule discharged.
