1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO.4016 OF 2008. (SURESH TRILOKCHAND JAIN & ANR. Vs PRIYADARSHAN M. GAHANKARI & ANR.) _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders ______________________________________________________________________________________________ Shri N.G.Jetha, Advocate for Petitioners. CORAM : A.B.CHAUDHARI, J. DATED : SEPTEMBER 12, 2008. 1. An order rejecting application for amendment to the plaint is under challenge in the present writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the process of damaging his house is continuing act and, therefore, trial Court's finding that the amendment proposed is barred by limitation is incorrect. 2. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the petitioner, I have gone through the application for amendment and find that cause of action that is disclosed for damages is of September, 2003 and in respect of which notice through Advocate was given on 25.03.2004. The amendment application was filed in 2 2008 and, therefore, the trial Court has rightly found that the proposed claim in the amendment application was barred by limitation. 3. Hence, no fault can be found in the impugned order. The petition is dismissed. JUDGE RR.