(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 494 OF 2011 Latabai w/o. Balaji Kapse, Age : 42 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Shirur Tajband, Taluka : Ahmedpur, District : Latur, through Power of Attorney Holder, Balaji s/o. Ramrao Kapse, Age : 50 years, Occupation : Service, R/o. Shirur Tajband, .. Petitioner Taluka : Ahmedpur, (Original defendant District : Latur. no.2) versus Janabai w/o. Anantrao Pind (Suryawanshi), .. Respondents Age : 26 years, (Nos.1 to 6 - Occupation : Household, Original plaintiffs R/o. Masalga, & Taluka : Nilanga, No.7 - Original District : Latur, defendant no.1.) and 6 others. ....................... Mr. Jayant R. Patil, Advocate, for the petitioner. ........................ (2) CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 24TH JANUARY 2011 COURT'S ORDER : 1. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. 2. The suit instituted in the year 2000 and pending at the stage of cross examination of witness No.2 for the defendant has been allowed to be amended. The amendment seeks to introduce a mortgage by defendant no.1 for obtaining loan. The trial court has found amendment relevant. 3. Mr. J.R. Patil, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, contends that a totally new story is sought to be introduced, that too without any documentary proof. 4. After hearing learned Counsel for the petitioner, I find that no prejudice is caused to the petitioner, who is defendant no. 2, purchaser of property from defendant no.1. The trial court has already recorded that merits of the amendment are not relevant at this stage. The petitioner can always seek appropriate consequential amendment and raise necessary defences. Hence, the petition is not entertained at this stage. (3) 5. In the result, the petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner is given liberty to challenge the impugned order, after the suit is finally decided, if occasion therefor arises. ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/494wp