1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 4334/2009 ( Nathmal B. Jain and others -: versus :- Dr. Shyamsunder S. Agrawal and another ) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : NOVEMBER 13, 2 0 0 9. Heard Shri A.S. Chandurkar, learned Counsel for petitioners and Shri B.N. Mohta, learned counsel for respondent no.1. Challenge is to the order dated 10.07.2009 passed below Exh.37 by the 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Hinganghat rejecting prayer of petitioner/defendant for amendment of written statement. The amendment was sought after recording of evidence had begun and petitioner/ defendant had contended that very recently he learnt that Rent Controller who passed order granting permission to respondent / landlord was not competent to do so. The trial Court has after considering the rival contentions found that, the said order of Rent Controller was challenged before the Appellate Authority and thereafter in Writ Petition and the Writ Petitions were dismissed by this Court. In this background, after noticing that recording of evidence of 2 respondent has already began, the application was rejected. Shri Chandurkar, learned counsel for petitioner states that the suit was prior to coming into force of amended provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 of C.P.C. And the issue sought to be raised was going to the root of the matter. He further argues that as the question sought to be urged was a pure question of law, it could have been argued by the defendant even without any amendment. To urge that in the matter of amendment of written statement, the court has to be more liberal, he has placed reliance upon the judgment reported at AIR 2009 SC 2544 (Sushil Kumar Jain .vrs. Manoj Kumar and another) and to show difference in standard of application of mind while considering such request he has placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court reported at (2006) 6 SCC 498 (Baldev Singh and others .vrs. Manohar Singh and another ). I find that the Court below has considered the necessary material and after application of mind has delivered the impugned order. No case is therefore, made out warranting any interference in writ jurisdiction, however, it is made clear that the petitioner is at liberty to challenge the said order in appeal, if occasion therefor arise. Subject to this, Writ Petition is disposed of, with no order as to costs. JUDGE Rgd.