[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO.532 OF 2006 IN CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.281 OF 2006 IN SUIT NO.1142 OF 1976 ALONG WITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2384 OF 2006 IN APPEAL NO. 532 OF 2006 IN CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.281 OF 2006 IN SUMMARY SUIT NO. 1142 OF 1976 Ramanna Nagappa Shetty ..Appellant Vs. Syndicate Bank and Ors. ..Respondents ... Dr.Virendra Tulzapurkar Senior Counsel with Mr.M.P.S.Rao i/b Little & Co. for Appellant Mr.Sandeep Parekh i/b Kanga & Co. for Respondent No.1 ... CORAM: F.I.REBELLO AND CORAM: F.I.REBELLO AND CORAM: F.I.REBELLO AND SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ. SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ. SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ. DATE : AUGUST 7,2006 DATE : AUGUST 7,2006 DATE : AUGUST 7,2006 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. In this appeal, it is submitted that the learned Judge had no reason to exercise discretion in allowing the amendment after a long period of time. 2. The law is now settled that the Court will reject the amendment if it is barred by limitation, if it is [-2-] useless, alters the cause of action or changes the nature of suit. In the instant case, what is contended is that the amendment is not bonafide. 3. Considering the fact that learned Single Judge has gone into issue and has exercised discretion, it will not be appropriate for this Court to interfere with the exercise of discretion. All that can be said is that so far limitation is concerned, that will not relate back to the date of the suit and it will be to the Defendant if entitled in law, to raise the plea of limitation. 4. With the above observation, appeal stands disposed of. [ F.I.REBELLO, J.] [ SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.]