1 wp-9120-11 mmj IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.9120 of 2011 M/s. Samartha Constructions through Laxman Arjun Vispute & ors. .. Petitioners Versus Vilas Kamalakar Bambulkar & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. M.R.Katikar for the Petitioners CORAM : R.M.SAVANT, J. DATE : 23rd NOVEMBER, 2011 P.C. : 1 The above Petition takes exception to the order dated 11-8-2011, passed by the Learned 4th Joint Civil Judge, Kalyan, by which order, the Application Exhibit 72 for amendment filed by the Petitioners came to be rejected. 2 It is required to be noted that the Petitioners are the original Plaintiffs who had filed the suit through its proprietor. The parties went to trial and the cross examination of the petitioners/plaintiffs is over. However, after the cross examination was over, the said application for amendment came to be filed to change the status of the Petitioner from proprietor to the partnership firm. The Trial Court on the basis that the Petitioner was aware that he is a partner of Samartha Constructions and inspite of the same, has described himself as a proprietor in the plaint on 2 wp-9120-11 the basis of which, he has been cross examined, did not deem it fit to allow the said amendment application on the ground that allowing the amendment would result in taking away the admission of the Petitioners in the cross examination. 2 In my view, the reasons mentioned by the Trial Court for rejecting the said application are unexceptional and do not merit interference at the hands of this Court in its writ jurisdiction. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioners sought to place reliance on the Judgment of the Apex Court reported in AIR 1964 SC page 818 in the matter of Kurapati Venkata Mallayya Vs. Thondepu Ramaswami & Co. The reading of the said Judgment shows that the facts in the said judgment stand apart from the facts of the present case wherein the Petitioners have chosen to describe himself as a proprietor and thereafter wants to change his status as partnership firm after the cross examination is over. The said Judgment would therefore, have no application. In that view of the matter, no case for interdiction is made out. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. (R.M.SAVANT, J.)