1 wp353.11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Writ Petition No. 353 of 2011 Dr. Praveen Kantilal Jain & anr. ..Petitioners v/s. Dr. Sharad Appanna Katekari & ors. ..Respondents Mr. Vijay Killedar for the petitioners. CORAM:- B.R. GAVAI, J. DATED :- FEBRUARY 22 2011. P.C. By way of present Petition, the Petitioner challenges the order dated 19th November, 2010 vide which the Application filed by the respondent- plaintiff for amendment of plaint came to be allowed. 2. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the amendment is of such nature which takes away the defence of the Petitioner and further it seeks to incorporate the facts pertaining to the period of filing of the suit. 2 wp353.11.sxw 3. The trial of the suit is yet to commence and, therefore, the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 would not be applicable to the facts of the present case. Insofar as the contention of the Petitioner that the amendment takes away the defence of the Petitioner is concerned, the Petitioner would always be at liberty to file consequential amendment to written-statement so as to meet the averments sought to be brought on record by the amendment. Merely by allowing the amendment, it does not amount that contention of the plaintiff in amendment is accepted. It would be for the plaintiff to prove his case by leading the cogent evidence. 4. In that view of the matter, no case is made out for interference. Rejected. (B.R. GAVAI, J)