1 wp-3855-11 mmj IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3855 of 2011 Girish Narbehram Tank .. Petitioner Versus Kesharben Dharsibhai Tank & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. Sandeep Shinde for the Petitioner CORAM : R.M.SAVANT, J. DATE : 23rd NOVEMBER, 2011 P.C. : 1 The above Petition takes exception to the order dated 30-3-2011, passed by the learned Extra Ad-hoc Judge, Nashik, by which order, the application Exhibit-17 for amendment of the written statement filed by the Petitioner in Regular Civil Suit No.371 of 2002 came to be rejected. 2 The Petitioner is the original Defendant No.2, who sought to amend his written statement in terms of the proposed amendments contained in the said application Exhibit 17. The said amendments according to the Defendant No.2 were clarificatory in nature as already the foundation of the defence has been laid in the original written statement as filed. The said amendment application Exhibit 17 was moved at the stage when the appeal filed by the Petitioner against the decree was kept for hearing and was adjourned on as many as 5 to 6 occasions at the request of the 2 wp-3855-11 Defendants. After seeking such adjournments that the application Exhibit 17 was moved. The said application was rejected on the ground that the legal issues sought to be raised by the said amendment have already been raised in the original written statement as filed and considering the number of adjournments sought by the Petitioner in the said appeal, the Trial Court has observed that the said application was moved only to protract the hearing of the appeal. It is required to be noted that the Petitioner has raised the issue of the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in the written statement as also that the lease in question could not be terminated in the manner sought to be done without recourse to the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act. The Trial Court has dealt with the said issues and answered them against the Petitioner. 3 In my view, considering the aforesaid facts and more especially considering the fact that the legal issues which were sought to be amplified by the proposed amendment have already been dealt with by the Trial Court whilst deciding the said suit. In my view, no fault can be found with the order of the Trial Court in rejecting the said Application Exhibit 17 for amendment. In that view of the matter, no case for interference is made out. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. (R.M.SAVANT, J.)