1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 5868/2010. Anantrao S, Metkar -: VERSUS :- Gaurakshan Gopalkrishna Sansthan and another. 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. DATED : DECEMBER 09, 2010. Heard Shri M.V. Mohokar, learned counsel for petitioner. Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal has found application under Order VI Rule 7 of Civil Procedure Code to memo of revision by petitioner/applicant before it unnecessary. The learned counsel for petitioner contends that, unless and until the memo of revision is amended, the points cannot be looked into. Absence of pleading at the most may prejudice the respondents, but then respondents have not expressed any such prejudice and they have opposed the prayer for amendment. 2 It is apparent that therefore judgment on which learned counsel for petitioner is placing reliance are not relevant. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal has also found that only grounds of law based on facts already on record, were sought to be added. I find that the application of mind by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal is without any jurisdictional error and there is no perversity. No prejudice is caused to petitioner. Petition as filed is misconceived and is therefore, rejected. No costs. JUDGE Rgd.