IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO. 8755 OF 2007 Waman Vishnu Jadhav ... Petitioner. Vs. Smt. Laxmibai M.Khanekar and Ors. ... Respondents. S.V.Sadavarte for the petitioner. CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.A.Sayed, J. : A.A.Sayed, J. : A.A.Sayed, J. DATE DATE DATE : February 8, 2008. : February 8, 2008. : February 8, 2008. P.C. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. 2. This petition is filed impugning the Orders dated 9th February, 2004 and 5th July, 2004 passed by the Civil Judge, J.D., Pune restoring the suit and allowing the amendment to the plaint respectively. 3. The Petitioner is the original defendant No.1. His case is that the amendment to the plaint should not have been allowed and that no notice of the same was given to him when the suit was restored to file. It is his contention that the earlier application for a similar amendment was refused by the Trial Court and subsequent application of the similar nature ought not to have been allowed by the trial Court. The learned Counsel further submits that the petitioner did not get an opportunity to file reply to the amendment application in view of the fact that the suit was dismissed and that he was not aware that the suit was restored at the fag end of the same day when it was dismissed. 4. The Apex Court has time and again held that the courts are required to be liberal in granting amendments, particularly when the trial has not commenced and the amendments do not make out a new case. It is noted that the suit was admittedly restored on the same day by the Trial Court. 5. In my view no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner if the amendment is allowed and the petitioner would get full opportunity to defend the suit including filing of additional written statement. I also find that there is no prayer for condonation of delay in the writ petition as the impugned orders were passed in 2004 and the writ petition has been filed on 7th September, 2007. That apart, no case for condonation of delay is made out. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, in my view, no interference is called for to exercise writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution to set aside the impugned order. Consequently the writ petition is dismissed. [A.A.Sayed, [A.A.Sayed, [A.A.Sayed, J.] J.] J.]