1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 4380 OF 2008 (Shri Vishwanath Kashinath Panpatte & Anr. vs. Sau. Ashabai Rangnath @ Rangrao Kolape) 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. OCTOBER 08, 2008. Heard Shri Dhumale, learned counsel for the petitioners – defendants. The challenge is to the order dated 06.09.2008, by which the Court below has permitted the parties to lead additional evidence. The objection of Shri Dhumale, learned counsel is that after the case was closed for judgment, such an opportunity cannot be given. He wants to rely upon number of judgments in support of his contention. However, perusal of facts in this matter reveal that case was closed for judgment by the trial Court on 16.1.2007 and thereafter an application vide Exh. 40 seeking amendment in plaint was moved on 25.1.2007. That application for amendment was allowed on 16.3.2007 and amendment was carried out thereafter. The defendants have also carried out consequential amendment thereafter. It also appears from the 2 copies of order sheets enclosed that one application at Exh. 45 was then filed by the plaintiff – respondent and present petitioner gave his say on 07.06.2007 and matter was then adjourned for orders on Exh. 45 from time to time. On 6.9.2007, Exh. 45 was allowed. The Court also directed present petitioner to amend his written statement on or before 14.9.2007 and then the matter was adjourned for additional issues. The Court on 27.2.2008 found that the additional issues were not necessary and hence adjourned the matter for final arguments. After that on 13.3.2008, the petitioner has moved an application for seeking additional evidence and by the impugned order, that has been granted. It is, therefore, apparent that here after the matter was closed for judgment, plaint has been amended, written statement has been consequentially amended and then trial Court has permitted the respondent – plaintiff to lead additional evidence. Shri Dhumale, learned counsel has fairly stated that in none of the judgments on which he is placing reliance, amendment has been allowed after the case was closed for judgment. In these circumstances, I find that there is no jurisdictional error or perversity in the matter, 3 warranting any interference in writ jurisdiction. Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.