1 wp4291 ssp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4291 OF 2011 M/s.Harshal Developers Pvt.Ltd. Co. and another ...Petitioners vs. Manohar Gopal Bavadekar & Anr. ...Respondents Mr.Jaydeep Deo for the Petitioners Mr.Vijay Limaye i/b City Legal for the respondent no.1 CORAM : A.S.OKA,J. DATE : JULY 19, 2011 P.C.: 1 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. The petitioners are the 1st and 2nd defendants in a suit filed by the first respondent. The suit filed by the first respondent was decreed and the present petitioners have preferred an appeal for challenging the decree. The Appeal is pending in the District Court. During the pendency of the Appeal, an application at Exh.37 was made by the petitioners seeking amendment of the written statement. Amendment was sought for raising a contention that the subject matter of the suit was beyond pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court of Civil Judge (J.D.) which has passed the decree. The said application has been rejected by the Appellate Court by the impugned order. 2 After having considered the submissions made by the petitioners, I find no error in the impugned order. Admittedly, the contention sought to be raised of lack of pecuniary jurisdiction of the 2 wp4291 Trial Court was not raised during the pendency of the suit. An appeal was preferred by the petitioners in the year 2009 and on 8th December 2010 by filing an application at Exh.37, the said objection sought to be raised for the first time. In view of sub section 2 of section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908, the appellants could not have been permitted to raise the said contention in the Appeal. Hence, there is no merit in the petition and the same is rejected. JUDGE