*1* wp.7201.09.915.sxw kps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7201 OF 2009 Rajaram Keshav Shinde. ..Petitioner -Versus- Sanjida Abdul Shafee and others. ..Respondents .......... Mr.V.P.Sawant with Mr.Satyajeet Mirajkar i/b Pillai & Company, for the Petitioner. Mr.V.M.Joshi, for the Respondent Nos.4 to 7. Mr.R.S.Ghadge i/b A.S.Desai, for the Respondent No.4. .......... CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. Date : 05th July, 2011. P.C.: 1 Heard both sides. The Petitioner is original Opponent No.2 in a dispute being Dispute No.CC/III/926/1994 pending before the Judge, Co-operative Court No.3, Mumbai. The original Disputants applied for amendment to this dispute which application came to be rejected on 14.11.2008 by the learned Trial Judge. The revision application was preferred being Revision Application No.23/2009 before the Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court and by the impugned order delivered on 06.07.2009, the same has been allowed and the amendment is granted. 2 Aggrieved by this order, the original Opponent No.2 has filed this Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3 Having perused the order under challenge, I see no reason to interfere at this stage. It is not as if the Petitioner is without any remedy. If the merits of the amendment application have not been gone into nor *2* wp.7201.09.915.sxw decided while allowing the same, it would be open for the Petitioner to raise appropriate pleas at the stage of final argument in dispute and point out that the reliefs sought by the amended pleas cannot be granted on the ground of limitation, so also, on merits. All such pleas are unaffected by the impugned order. If the final order in dispute is adverse to the Petitioner, he can raise appropriate pleas before the Appellate Court by challenging the order of amendment. All pleas in that behalf are kept open. 4 With the above clarifications, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J)