:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 1988 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 1988 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 1988 OF 2008 Pradip Bhaskar Sant ..Petitioner V/s Smt. Shobhana Vishwanath Kadam ..Respondent Mr.S.V. Palsule Desai for the petitioner Mr. A.A. Garge with Deepali Patil for respondent CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.A. SAYED, J. : A.A. SAYED, J. : A.A. SAYED, J. DATE DATE DATE : 21st APRIL, 2008 : 21st APRIL, 2008 : 21st APRIL, 2008 P.C. 1. Heard. 2. Rule. By consent rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally. 3. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 5th January, 2008 of the Joint Civil Judge, J.D., Kalyan, whereby the application for amendment of the plaint has been rejected. 4. The trial Court has recorded in its order that the evidence of both the parties has been completed since long and the matter is ready for final arguments. It is further observed that if the application is allowed it will change the nature of :2: the suit. It is noted that the present application has been filed in 2007 and that the construction in the open space was allegedly carried out in 2003-04. It is not in dispute that the petitioner and the respondent are neighbours and the petitioner would be well aware of the construction, if any, right from 2003-2004. At this belated stage when the matter is kept for argument this application is made. 5. The petitioner has referred the decision in the case of Pankaja & Anr V. Yellapa (D) by LRS and Pankaja & Anr V. Yellapa (D) by LRS and Pankaja & Anr V. Yellapa (D) by LRS and Ors. Ors. Ors. reported in JT 2004 (6) SC 259 wherein the Court has held- that application for amendment of the pleadings should not be disallowed merely because it is opposed on the ground that the same is barred by limitation and will have to be considered bearing in mind the discretion that is vested with the Court in allowing or disallowing such amendment in the interest of justice. 6. In my view the trial Court has exercised its discretion in the matter judiciously and the impugned order cannot be faulted and therefore, no interference in the impugned order is called for. :3: Rule stands discharged and writ petition is disposed of. 7. The costs deposited by the petitioner in this Court is allowed to be withdrawn by the respondent as costs of this petition. ( A.A. SAYED, J.) A.A. SAYED, J.) A.A. SAYED, J.)