:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO.431 OF 2008 PETITION NO.431 OF 2008 PETITION NO.431 OF 2008 Mukund Yeshwant Phatak ..Petitioner V/s Sudhakar Raghunath Barve ..Respondent Mr.V.S. Kapse for the petitioner Mr.Vinit D. Jaule for the respondent CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.A. SAYED, J. : A.A. SAYED, J. : A.A. SAYED, J. DATE DATE DATE : 19TH MARCH, 2008 : 19TH MARCH, 2008 : 19TH MARCH, 2008 P.C. 1. By this petition the petitioner takes exception to the order dated 16-11-2007, by which order the amendment to the written statement of the respondent has been allowed. 2. The petitioner is the orig. plaintiff- landlord of the suit property. The respondent is the orig.defendant- tenant in respect of the suit premises. Pending the petition, an application for amendment of the written statement was filed by the respondent. According to the petitioner he gave his no objection to the application on a misconception that he is signing on the application for seeking a date in the matter, as on the same day the petitioner :2: has himself sought time in the matter by making an application to that effect. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the no objection was granted on the misunderstanding and when his advocate was not present in the Court and on the spur of moment he signed the application and gave his no objection. The learned Counsel for the respondent has opposed the petition on the ground that the petitioner was well aware of the import of his signature on the application and he is an educated person being a professor and therefore, he was aware of the consequences, while giving his no objection and he has signed no objection after reading the application. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention to Order 6 Rule 17 and particularly to proviso to the said rule which reads as follows:- "....Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial." :3: Relying upon the said proviso the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that as the respondent could have raised the matter before the trial commenced, the amendment to the written statement ought not to have been allowed by the trial Court. 4. In my view the impugned order being an interlocutory order, interest of justice would be met if the petitioner is granted liberty to raise the plea which is the subject matter of this petition in respect of allowing of the amendment of the written statement in further proceedings in the event any adverse order is passed in the suit, I order accordingly. 5. Petition is disposed of with liberty as aforestated. ( A.A. SAYED, J.) A.A. SAYED, J.) A.A. SAYED, J.) :4: