wp2224-11.doc 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2224 OF 2011 Dhanraj Nihalchand Oswal .. Petitioner versus Shri.Kantilal Nathmal Baldota & Ors .. Respondents Ms.Rohini Amin for the petitioner. Mr.P.N.Karlekar for the respondents. CORAM : B.R.GAVAI, J. 2nd MAY 2011. P.C.: . Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. The petitioner challenges the order dated 14th January 2011 thereby rejecting the application filed by the present petitioner for amendment of the written statement at appellate stage. 2 The suit for eviction filed by the respondent-plaintiff is decreed. Being aggrieved thereby, an appeal is filed by the present petitioner. During the pendency of the appeal, the wp2224-11.doc 2 Special Land Acquisition Officer has issued a notice on 31st December 2009 for taking possession of the suit premises. An application for amendment came to be filed to raise a ground that since the land was acquired, the respondent-plaintiff had no locus to file the suit. The same is rejected. 3 The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that since the event has taken place during the pendency of the appeal, the learned Trial Court ought to have allowed the amendment. 4 The notice issued by the Land Acquisition Officer was challenged before the Division Bench of this Court by filing a writ petition. The Division Bench of this Court while dismissing the petition has observed thus: “... There is already a decree of eviction passed against him, though an appeal is pending. In our opinion, as the acquisition is completed and there is no challenge to the acquisition, the notice of the wp2224-11.doc 3 Land Acquisition Officer for delivery of the possession cannot be faulted. We find no substance in the petition. The petition is rejected.” 5 When the Division Bench of this Court has dismissed the petition of the very same petitioner upholding the notice of the Land Acquisition Officer, as a matter of judicial propriety this Court cannot pass any order which would have the effect of passing an order in conflict with the order passed by the Division Bench. 6 In that view of the matter, no case is made out for interference in the extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. 7 Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing of the appeal is expedited. (B.R.GAVAI, J)