1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4927 OF 2008 M/s. Rang Bharati & Ors. ..Petitioners. V/s. Todi Industries Ltd. ..Respondent. Mr.P.S.Dani for petitioners. Mr. R.A.Thorat,Sr.Counsel i/b. P.K.Vyas for respondent. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J DATE : JULY 16, 2008. DATE : JULY 16, 2008. DATE : JULY 16, 2008. P.C. : P.C. : P.C. : 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. Although the Petitioners may be right to the extent that the trial Court, without a formal application for leave to amend the plaint, ought not to have passed the order granting liberty to the Plaintiffs to carry out necessary amendment in the plaint. However, this does not take the matter any further. The fact remains that except vaguely mentioning in the Written Statement that the Suit is not maintainable, the Defendants did not specifically make out a case that the suit was not maintainable on the assertion that it is filed by a person who was 2 incompetent to present the suit on behalf of the Company. The Defendants neither insisted before the trial Court to frame issue in that behalf when issues were framed. Moreso, even during the entire evidence not even suggestion has been given on behalf of the Defendants that the Suit was not maintainable on that count. In this backdrop, the trial Court has shown indulgence to the Respondents/plaintiffs to carry out necessary amendment in view of the plea taken by the Petitioners/Defendants in the application under consideration. That indulgence has been shown in the interest of justice and moreso because so called defect pointed out by the Defendants was obviously a curable defect, as has been held by the Apex Court in the case of United Bank of India V/s. Naresh Kumar United Bank of India V/s. Naresh Kumar United Bank of India V/s. Naresh Kumar and ors.(AIR 1997 SC 3). and ors.(AIR 1997 SC 3). and ors.(AIR 1997 SC 3). 3. The argument of the Petitioners that the Defendants had vested right does not commend to me. The defect being curable defect, it is a matter of descrition for the trial Court to permit the party to cure such defect. No interference in exercise of Writ jurisdiction against the discretionary order is warranted. It is not necessary to underscore the argument canvassed on behalf of the Respondents that the objection taken by the Defendants is a non-issue, 3 inasmuch as the Suit has been presented by the Director, who was competent in law to do so and not by any other person, who would require express authority from the Company in that behalf. Taking any view of the matter, no interference is warranted. This Petition is dismissed. (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J)