1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 7876 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. WRIT PETITION NO.: 7876 OF 2010 *** 1. Heard learned counsel Mr. Hon for Petitioner, Shri Kulkarni for Respondent Nos. 1 to 6 plaintiffs. Before registration of suit application for amendment of plaint moved by Respondents was granted. The defendants appeared and objected to it. Realising this, the trial Court on 11th December, 2008 recalled that order. Thereafter, another amendment application vide Exhibit-30 came to be moved. After noticing all these facts and after noticing that the date of knowledge of consideration deed dated 6th January, 1997 is not disclosed and there was no reason as to why facts within knowledge could not be pleaded initially, trial Court has allowed the amendment. It found that issues were still to be framed and the amendments needed to be allowed. It also noted objection of present 2 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 7876 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. petitioner that suit was barred by limitation and that the effort was to bring it within time limit. It has kept that issue open. 2. After hearing learned counsel I find that no prejudice is caused to petitioner/ defendant in the matter. All facts are on record and hence all contentions raised in the petition can be well raised before the trial Court. The issues were still to be framed and after appreciating all relevant grounds the amendment has been allowed. There is no jurisdictional error or perversity. Hence, petition is rejected. [B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J.] Dated:11/03/2011. ans/7876