1 wp20.11 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 20 OF 2011 _____________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | appearances, Court's | Court’s or Judge’s orders orders or | directions and | Registrar's orders | _____________________________________________________________________ Mr. H.D. Deshmukh, Advocate for the petitioner. Order dated 07.10.2010 passed in Misc. Civil Appeal and thereafter the order dated 09.11.2010 passed by the trial Court refusing leave him to amend the plaint, are questioned in this Petition. The appeal was filed by the present petitioner against the rejection of temporary injunction and also against the rejection of application for interim maintenance. The Appellate Court noticed that there was suppression of material facts, and therefore, dismissed appeal. However, it expedited the proceedings in Regular Civil Suit. The petitioner appeared before the trial Court, sought some adjournments and then moved application for amendment. By amendment, the previous history alleged to have been suppressed (found to have been suppressed from the trial Court) is sought to be added. The trial Court rejected the said application. 2 wp20.11 2. Learned counsel contends that temporary injunction and interim maintenance is denied to petitioner for alleged suppression and when those facts were sought to be added, the amendment has not been allowed on the ground that the issues have already been framed and trial had already started. He also contends that the question of about stage at which the trial can be said to have started is already referred to Larger Bench by Nagpur bench of this Court. 3. It is apparent that for the alleged suppression, the appellate Court found the petitioner not entitled to temporary injunction as also interim maintenance. The petitioner did not challenge appellate order immediately and obtained some adjournments before the trial Court. Thereafter moved application for amendment. After rejection of amendment, the present Petition is filed. Thus, the appellate order dated 07.10.2010 was acquiesced by the present petitioner by participating in the proceedings before the trial Court. The trial Court has found amendment untenable as trial had already started. It appears that the petitioner was party to the earlier litigation between the petitioner and the respondent. 4. In this situation, I am not inclined to interfere in the Petition in this jurisdiction. With liberty to petitioner to challenge the order dated 09.11.2010 passed by the trial 3 wp20.11 Court after suit is finally decided, if occasion arises therefor, present Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. (B.P. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE. 10.01.2011 gas/wp20.11