*1* IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.10006/2009 Methodist Church in India. ..Petitioner -VERSUS- Dinesh K. Agarwal and others. ..Respondents ............... Mr.M.P. Vashi, Advocate i/b M.P.Vashi & Associates, for the Petitioner. Mr.R.V.Govilkar, Advocate with Mr.K.R.Belose, Advocates for the Respondent No.1. ............... CORAM: A.P. DESHPANDE, J. Dated 07th December, 2009. PC:- 1 Consequent upon allowing the amendment application moved by the Petitioner/Defendant, the Respondent No.1/Plaintiff herein applied for amendment of the plaint, which is termed as consequential amendment of the plaint. The Trial Court permitted the said amendment. By the present petition, the Petitioner/ Defendant takes an objection to the consequential amendment permitted by the Trial Court in the plaint by contending that the said amendment travels beyond the scope of suit and goes to call in question the legality and validity of the appointment of incumbent who came to be appointed in place of the Plaintiff. 2 With a view to show prejudice, it is submitted that the Court even did not permit the amendment to Written Statement *2* consequent upon the amendment of plaint being permitted. 3 In all fairness, the learned counsel for the Respondent No.1 makes a statement that he has no objection to permit the Petitioner to amend the Written Statement. 4 In that view of the matter, the grievance having been redressed, it is open for the Petitioner to carry out amendment in the Written Statement, if so advised, on or before 17th December, 2009. 5 Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. 7 Parties to act on an authenticated copy of this order. (A.P. Deshpande, J)