/ 1/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1619 OF 2007 Dagduappa Kondia Sawant ...Petitioner V/s. Sudesh Babanrao Musale & Anr. ...Respondents Mr.I.M. Kharidi for Petitioner. Mr.K.Y. Mandlik for Respondent No.2. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. DATED : 8th APRIL, 2008. P.C.:- 1 Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the Respondent No.2. 2. Petitioner's application for amendment of the plaint was rejected and being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the Petitioner has preferred this writ petition. It is an admitted position that the parties to the proceedings have closed their evidence and it was kept for final argument. Thereafter, this application is filed. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Respondent No.2 was impleaded as Defendant No.2 and therefore, this amendment has become necessary. Record, however, indicates that after / 2/ Respondent No.2 was impleaded as Defendant No.2, parties have led evidence and matter is closed for arguments. Trial Court inter alia, therefore, on that ground has not permitted the Petitioner to amend the Plaint. I do not see any infirmity in the said order. There is no reason to interfere with the aforesaid order while exercising writ jurisdiction of this Court. 2. Petition is, therefore, dismissed and disposed of accordingly ( V.M. KANADE, J.)