1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7345 OF 2009 Narendra s/o. Chandulal Modi ....Petitioner. Versus Barkuram s/o. Ramchandra Lathi ....Respondent. Shri. M.N. Navandar, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri. A.G. Talhar, Advocate for the respondent. CORAM : R.M. BORDE, J. DATE : 18th March, 2010 ORAL ORDER : 1. This is a petition by original defendant raising exception to the order passed by the District Judge-II, Jalgaon on 6th May 2009 below Exh. 23 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 215/2003, rejecting the application, seeking amendment to the written statement at appellate stage. 2. The respondent/original plaintiff presented the suit, claiming recovery of possession of tenanted premises from defendant/petitioner herein. The suit was presented in 2000 and the same came to be decreed by the trial Court in the year 2003. The defendant was directed to vacate the possession of the tenanted premises belonging to the plaintiff. The defendant preferred an appeal being Regular Civil Appeal No. 215/2003 and the same is stated to be pending. After about 5 years of the presentation of appeal, an application came to be presented by the 2 original defendant, appellant before the first appellate Court, seeking amendment to the written statement. By way of proposed amendment, the defendant is challenging the capacity of power of attorney holder to prosecute the case and depose on behalf of the plaintiff. The first appellate Court on consideration of application as well as the objection raised by the original plaintiff was pleased to reject the application in view of order passed on 6th May 2009. 3. I have heard the arguments advanced by Shri. Navandar, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Shri. Talhar, learned counsel appearing for respondent. There are absolutely no reasons set out as to what prevented the defendant from seeking amendment to the written statement during pendency of suit or during the period of four years of the pendency of appeal. The appeal is kept pending since 2003 and the original plaintiff/landlord is kept away from the fruits of the decree. There are no circumstances, compelling this Court to call for any interference in the interlocutory orders passed by the first appellate Court in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. The petition is devoid of substance and hence, stands rejected. [ R.M. BORDE, J. ] ssc/wp7345.09