IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WP/9263/2010 POOJA ENTERPRISES V/S COMMERCIAL MANAGER HINDUSTHAN COCA COLA ... Shri M.M.Bhokarikar, Advocate for petitioner and Shri A.S.Bajaj, Advocate for respondent. ... CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI,J. Dated : April 15, 2011 PER COURT :- 1. Heard respective counsel. 2. The suit is filed for accounts and for recovery of amount. In paragraph No.16 of the plaint sum of Rs.47,03,406/- is claimed to be outstanding. In that suit, it appears that on 4.7.2009, the trial Court has passed some order for payment of court fees. In that suit, there is already a direction to produce accounts to respondent No.1 and according to petitioner, those accounts are still not produced. 3. In this background, application at Exhibit 41 for amendment of the plaint was moved and the figure of Rs.47,03,406/-, mentioned in paragraph No. 16 was sought to be deleted. The trial Court has rejected that application. According to learned counsel, an application has been moved before commencement of trial court and as accounts are not produced, it cannot be said that amount of Rs.47,03,406/- is payable to the petitioner. He contends that in accordance with law on the point, the 2 WP/9263/2010 Court fee on the amount found due and recoverable shall be paid by the petitioner/plaintiff and the amendment cannot be rejected on that count. 4. Shri Bajaj, learned Advocate points out that in the plaint, there was a specific reference to this amount and in suit notice also, said amount was demanded. 5. The trial Court has looked into all the relevant aspects and thereafter has exercised its powers. There is no jurisdictional error or perversity in the impugned order. Hence the Writ Petition is rejected. No order as to costs. ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.) ... akl