1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 4497 OF 2010 Mrs. Nita Sukhdeo Pawar .-: VERSUS :- Mrs. Shantabai B. Zine and another. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : OCTOBER 06, 2010. Heard Shri A.P. Sadavarte, learned Counsel for petitioner and Shri R.V. Kavimandan, learned Counsel for respondents. The event which occurred in 2008 was sought to be brought on record and by a reasoned order the learned Trial Court did not allow the petitioner/plaintiff to incorporate it. That order is dated 23.10.2008. Thereafter, petitioner moved an application on 07.02.2009 seeking leave to adduce additional evidence and that application has been rejected on 23.07.2009. The petitioner claims that he was 2 not receiving proper legal assistance and after death of one Advocate in 2009, he engaged another Advocate on 02.03.2010 and then was advised to approach this Court. Learned Counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2 has opposed the petition, as according to him there is no jurisdictional error and perversity. With the assistance of both the learned Counsel, I have perused the impugned order by which the amendment was rejected and also leave to adduce additional evidence was refused. As pointed out by Shri Sadavarte, learned Counsel, I find that while refusing amendment the learned trial Court has made certain observations about the legality of power of attorney. It is apparent that orders passed long back are assailed before this court by putting blame on Advocate. I am not inclined to interfere in this situation. Petitioner is given liberty to challenge the order refusing amendment as also the order refusing leave to adduced additional evidence, after the suit is adjudicated finally. However, it is made clear that the observations about the validity of the power of attorney made in the order dated 23.10.2008 shall not influence the learned trial Court while considering the rival contentions in relation to that document at the time of final 3 adjudication of the suit. With this clarification, Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. JUDGE Rgd.