1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.529 OF 2010 Vijay D. Mandanekar .. Petitioner versus Narendra B. Mantri .. Respondent Mr.R.R.Tiwari for the petitioner. Mr.V.S.Yadav for the respondent. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 18th March 2010. P.C.: . This is the petition filed by the tenant-defendant for challenging an order by which application for amendment of the plaint has been rejected. The application was made at a stage when evidence of the parties was already closed. The amendment is sought for bringing on record the area of the bungalow in possession of the respondent-landlord and for bringing on record the area of the open space around the bungalow. The second amendment sought is for bringing on record the size of the family of the petitioner-defendant. 2. While rejecting the application, in paragraph 18 of the impugned order, the learned trial Judge has observed thus: “18. Even if it is held that plaintiff is having the area which the defendant contended in proposed amendment this fact can be proved by the defendant by way of leading evidence to that effect though the defendant has orally stated the bungalow area. If the defendant 2 succeeds to prove the exact area of that bungalow by way of leading documentary evidence then same will be definitely prevail oral evidence. Therefore I am of the view that no prejudice will be caused to the defendant if this proposed amendment is not allowed.” 3. It is not in dispute that now the suit is at the stage of hearing of final arguments. Considering the stage of the suit and considering what is observed in paragraph 18 of the impugned order, at this stage no interference is called for with the impugned order. The impugned order is interlocutory in nature which is capable of being challenged in an appeal which may be preferred by the petitioner against the decree passed in the suit if the same be adverse to the petitioner. Subject to what is observed above, the writ petition is rejected. (A.S.OKA,J)