IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO.559 OF 2009 IN CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.76 OF 2009 IN T. SUIT NO.48 OF 1992 IN TESTAMENTARY PETITION NO.319 OF 1992 Dr. Avinash Vithal Rananavare ... Appellant Versus Dr. Ravindra alias Satish Vithal Rananavare and others. ... Respondents Mr. R.P. Behere with Mr. P.J. Das for the appellant. Mr. H.T. Pawar for the respondent Nos.1 and 2. CORAM : ANIL R. DAVE, CHIEF JUSTICE & S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : 9TH MARCH, 2010 P.C. The learned advocate for the appellant seeks permission to delete respondent No.3. Permission granted. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. 2. Being aggrieved by the order dated 6th October, 2009, passed by the learned Single Judge in Chamber Summons No.76 of 2009 in Testamentary Suit No.48 of 1992 in Testamentary Petition No.l319 of 1992, has been challenged in this appeal. 2. We have gone through the impugned order and also heard the learned advocates. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge was justified in passing the impugned order in view of the fact that the application in question was moved after 19 years and trial was going on. 3. We record the contents of para 3 of the impugned order which reads thus- "3. The submission that these amendments are clarificatory in nature, it means that the defendant has already raised these pleas, and, therefore, to support, he can lead appropriate material and evidence." 4. In view of the aforesaid observations made by the learned Single Judge, in our opinion, the appellant Is not prevented from leading any material evidence on the subject. The learned Single Judge has sufficiently protected the interest of the appellant. 5. We do not find any substance in the appeal. Hence the same is dismissed. No order as to costs. CHIEF JUSTICE S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.