1 pps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATEJURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4959 OF 2011 Shri Mohammad Yusut s/o.Abdul Ghani Momin ...Petitioner Versus Shri Zuber Ahmad S/o. Iqbal Ahmad Ansari & Others ...Respondents Mr.Amol Mhatre for the Petitioner CORAM:- R.Y.GANOO, J. DATED:- 7th SEPTEMBER, 2011. P.C. 1. The respondents have filed Regular Civil Suit No.441 of 2007 against the petitioner in the Court of Joint Civil Judge at Nashik. During the pendency of this suit, the respondents filed application for amendment of the plaint below Exhibit 51. The said application was contested by the petitioners and by Order dated 25th July, 2011 the learned 4th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nashik, granted the said application and permitted the respondents to carry out 2 amendment. This order dated 25.3.2011 is challenged in this petition. 2. I have heard learned Advocate Mr. Mhatre. According to Mr. Mhatre, after perusing the written statement filed by the petitioner, respondents have come out with application for amendment and that too was done after about one year or so. According to Mr. Mhatre, the amendment application should not have been granted on account of the delay. He submitted that the suit is of the year 2007 and no substantial progress had taken place in the suit as of today. He criticized the view taken by the learned Judge in granting the said application. He prayed for setting aside the said order. 3. I have perused the impugned order dated 25th March, 2011. It appears that on account of the information supplied by the petitioner, in the written statement , respondents thought it fit to bring appropriate facts on record by way of amendment. That application has been granted. I am not inclined to accept the submission of learned Advocate for the petitioner that lapse of about one year to bring out the amendment is fatal to the said amendment application. 3 In my view, looking to the text of the amendment application, the application for amendment was necessary in order to resolve the dispute between the parties on all points. The impugned order dated 25th March, 2011 is rightly passed and does not require any interference. The petition is required to be dismissed. 4. Learned Advocate Mr. Mhatre submitted that since the suit is of the year 2007, the learned Trial Judge be directed to hear and dispose of the suit. In my view, the petitioner can make an application to the learned trial Judge for early hearing of the suit, who shall consider the said application on the basis of the pendency before him and he may take up the suit for early hearing. In view of the above, following order is passed to dispose of this petition. ORDER Petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs. (R.Y.GANOO, J.)