1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 4152 OF 2008 (Mahadeo Tukaram Ingale vs. Vithal Rukhmai Sanstha, Sonala) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DECEMBER 11, 2008. Heard Shri Badhe, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Udeshi, Advocate holding for Shri Deshmukh, learned counsel for the respondents. Ms. Udeshi, learned counsel requested for adjournment, but her request was rejected. Shri Badhe, learned counsel states that the Court below has overlooked the fact that the evidence was not closed before four years and that reply filed to T.I. application hurriedly was adopted as written statement. He contends that in these circumstances, after change of counsel when new advocate obtained instructions, the omission to plead material fact was discovered. He contends that facts sought to be added are not inconsistent or new case. Ms. Udeshi, learned counsel states that a totally new story which was not there initially, is 2 sought to be added after the plaintiffs closed their evidence and also after defendant led his evidence. She contends that entirely different version about the occupation of the suit structure is sought to be introduced and Court below has rightly rejected the application. The suit is of the year 2003 and there is no plausible explanation as to why vital fact could not be pleaded at appropriate stage. In these circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter in writ jurisdiction. Writ Petition is dismissed. However, liberty to the petitioner to challenge the impugned order, if occasion therefor arises, after final adjudication of the suit. JUDGE *GS.