1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 5323/2009. ( Ganpat Bhiwa Kajarkhane & ors. -: versus :- Anandrao Mangaruji Girhepunje ) 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 : JANUARY 19, 2010. Heard Shri S. Saoji, learned counsel for petitioners and Shri N. S. Talmale, learned counsel for respondent. Temporary injunction sought for by the plaintiff was rejected by the Trial Court and his Misc. Civil Appeal was allowed on 12.12.2006. Thereafter, respondent / plaintiff sought amendment to his plaint and a prayer to obtain declaration that plaintiff is in lawful possession of the suit land by way of adverse possession came to be added. Thereafter, the present petitioner/defendant sought amendment to his written statement to include a counter claim for restoration of possession, and that has been rejected by the trial Court after noticing that there were no reasons given as to why such amendment could not be moved earlier and it is belated. Shri Saoji, learned counsel for petitioner argues that limitation cannot the ground at this stage and merits of 2 the amendment cannot be gone into by the trial Court. He has placed reliance upon a judgment reported at 2005 [3] Mh.L.J. 747 (Surinder Singh .vrs. Kapoor Singh through L.Rs.). There the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that application for amendment can be filed at any stage. All proposition of Shri Saoji, learned counsel are not debatable. However, here the amendment as sought does not disclose any cause of action to support it. The order dated 12.12.2006 passed by the District Judge in Misc. Civil Appeal cannot by itself constitute cause of action to support counter claim. The petitioner / defendant has not given any date on which he was dispossessed. In the circumstances, I do not find any thing wrong with the application of mind by the trial Court. No case warranting interference in writ jurisdiction is made out. Writ Petition is therefore dismissed, with no order as to cost. However, it is made clear that the petitioner / defendant is at liberty to challenge the said order after final adjudication in Civil Suit, if contingency therefor arise. JUDGE Rgd.