1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO. 4675 OF 2007. Virendrakumar s/o Champalal Baid, aged about 75 years, Occupation Cultivation, R/o Bhanapeth Ward, Chandrapur, Tahsil and District Chandrapur (Maharashtra) ... PETITIONER VERSUS Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited, A Company incorporated under Companies Act, 1956 having its Head Office at Prakash Garh, Bandra, Mumbai (represented by Assistant Engineer (O&M), MSEDCL, Saoli, Tah.Saoli, District Chandrapur. ... RESPONDENT .... Shri M.P. Khajanchi, Advocate for the petitioner. .... CORAM : R.V. MORE, J. DATED : 23RD APRIL, 2008. ORAL JUDGMENT : By the order dated 10th October, 2007, this Court issued notice before admission to the respondent with intimation that the petition may be disposed of finally at the 2 stage of admission. None appears on behalf of the respondent though duly served. 2. The petition pertains to rejection of amendment application and, therefore, required to be disposed of finally at the stage of admission. 3. Heard Shri M.P. Khajanchi, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. 4. The petitioner is the original plaintiff and the respondent is the original defendant in Regular Civil Suit No. 97 of 1998 filed for permanent, mandatory and prohibitory injunction and for recovery of damages on account of illegal disconnection of electric supply. The petitioner filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of the suit. By the said application, the petitioner wants to incorporate prayer for future damages along with the pleading to that effect as well as wants to correct 3 the typographical/accidental slips in the plaint along with certain schedules to be annexed as schedules to the plaint. 5. The trial Court rejected the petitioner's application on two counts, firstly that the claim is barred by law of limitation and secondly the amendment is filed at belated stage. 6. Having heard Shri M.P. Khajanchi, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and having gone through the impugned order, I am of the opinion that both the counts on which the petitioner's amendment application is rejected does not stand scrutiny of law. Insofar as the first ground that the petitioner's amendment regarding future damages is barred by limitation is concerned, now it is settled position that the amendment cannot be rejected merely because it is barred by law of limitation and the amendment can be granted subject to law of limitation. In this regard, I am fortified by the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ragu Thilak D. John .v. S. Rayappan and others (reported in 4 2001(2) SCC 472). Insofar as second ground of objection namely the amendment is filed belatedly is concerned, same has also no substance inasmuch as suit is filed prior to 2002 amendment to the Civil Procedure Code and it is settled principle that the delay is no ground to reject the amendment application. It is now settled principle that the Court should be liberal in granting amendment unless irreparable loss is caused to the other side or that the prayer for amendment was not bona fide. Looking into the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that no prejudice would be caused to the respondent if the amendment is allowed. The petitioner's bona fide in applying for amendment cannot be doubted. In this regard, I am fortified by the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Usha Balashaheb Swami and others .v. Kiran Appasao Swami and others (reported in 2007(5) Mh.L.J.,593). 7. In view of the above discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the trial Court committed error in rejecting the petitioner's application for amendment. I, therefore, dispose of the petition by passing following order. 5 “The impugned order is quashed and set aside. The petitioner's application at Exh.72 is allowed. The petitioner to carry out necessary amendment within a period of two weeks from today. Needless to state that the respondent is entitled to effect consequential amendment in his pleadings.” 8. The writ petition is disposed of in aforesaid terms. Rule is accordingly made absolute with no order as to costs. JUDGE *rrg.