1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 567 OF 2010. Ghyaneshwar M. Sahare -: versus :- Vishveshwar T. Giripunje 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 : FEBRUARY 24 , 2010. Heard Shri N.G. Jetha, learned counsel for petitioner and Shri S.C. Mishra, learned counsel for respondent. The application for amendment as filed does not clearly show that the construction at Killa Road has been carried out during the pendency of the suit. Though Shri Jetha, learned counsel has tried hard to show that it is an subsequent event, the application as drafted at the most shows that acquisition of knowledge by petitioner is being claimed to be subsequent. The consideration by Lower Appellate Court while rejecting leave to amend to present petitioner [appellant before it] therefore cannot be labeled to be either erroneous or perverse. Shri Mishra, learned counsel for respondent / landlord has pointed out that the Regular Civil Appeal is of the year 2005 and respondent – landlord has filed written notes of arguments in it in June 2008 itself, inspite of that, 2 the matter has not been decided and the appellant / tenant filed application for amendment on 06.03.2009 alleging it to be on account of subsequent event. In these circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter in writ jurisdiction. Writ Petition is dismissed, however, the petitioner is at liberty to challenge the impugned order dated 15.09.2009 after adjudication of Regular Civil Appeal, if occasion therefor arises. No cost. JUDGE Rgd.