1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.207 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6860 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO.3351 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and the Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders Coram: Smt. Nishita Mhatre, & Shri M. T. Joshi, JJ. Date : 15th June, 2011 Shri R.R. Mantri, Advocate for the appellants. Shri R.S.Deshmukh, Advocate for Resp.No.4. ---- 1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the order dated 2.5.2011, passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, in Writ Petition No. 3351 of 2011. The writ petition preferred was against the order dated 20.10.2010 passed by the learned Trial Court, allowing the amendment for 2 adding the applicant therein as a party-defendant to the suit. The applicant before the trial court is respondent No.4 herein. 2. The learned Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that, (i) the learned Single Judge has not considered the factual situation and circumstances under which the appellant's advocate was forced to carry out the amendment as directed by the trial court, and (ii) by granting liberty to challenge the impugned order after the trial of the suit is over, the learned Single Judge has committed an error as the appellant is dominus litis and, therefore, cannot be forced to contest a suit against a party which, according to the appellant, is neither a proper, nor a necessary party. 3. In our view, no case for interference in the impugned order has been made out. The learned 3 Single Judge has considered the fact that the order passed by the trial court, which is impugned in the petition, is dated 20.10.2010 and that the writ petition, although filed in January 2011, was circulated on 28.4.2011. By then, for reasons best- known to the appellant, the plaint had already been amended. The Learned Single Judge has rightly, therefore, granted liberty to the appellant to challenge the order impugned in the writ petition, in case he fails in the suit. 4. Appeal is dismissed. Consequently, civil application for stay also stands disposed of. (M.T. JOSHI) (NISHITA MHATRE, J.) pnd/lpa207.11