1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 2521 OF 2010 (Shri Kanhaiyalal Pyarelal Sahu vs. Smt. Laxmibai w/o Kamalchand Banode & Anr.) 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. JUNE 10, 2010. Heard Shri Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner. The application by the petitioner seeking leave to amend his written statement in RCS No. 463 of 1996 has been rejected by lower appellate Court. The leave was sought on the ground of subsequent acquittal in criminal prosecution. The two other grounds sought to be raised are under Order 2, Rule 2 of Civil Procedure Code and about the fact of suit property being situated in slum area. I have heard the learned counsel. It is apparent from his arguments that necessary facts under Order 2, Rule 2 are already pleaded. Similarly, the pending prosecution was also before the trial Court. The acquittal therefrom can be demonstrated by filing certified copy before the trial Court. There is no reason as to why the location of suit property in slum area could not have been shown when the written statement was filed or when the appeal was preferred. The suit as filed 2 is of the year 1996. In this situation, I am not inclined to interfere with the discretion exercised by the appellate Court. With liberty to the petitioner to challenge the impugned order after the appeal is finally decided, if occasion therefor arises, writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.