1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 5195 OF 2009 (Smt. Rekhaben Dayalal Kamdar & Ors. vs. M/s. Kalinga Automobiles Engineering Works & Ors.) 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. FEBRUARY 23, 2010. Heard Shri Ghare, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Purohit, learned counsel for respondents No.1, 2, 3, 5 & 6. Shri Purohit, learned counsel states that Respondent No. 4 has expired long back. The prayer of the petitioners – plaintiffs to correct some error in describing boundaries of suit property (a shop) has been rejected by impugned order dated 24.09.2009. Shri Ghare, learned counsel contends that it has got no bearing on the merits of the controversy and it causes no prejudice. Shri Purohit, learned counsel on the other hand contends that it changes the location of the shop. The evidence of plaintiffs is already over and evidence of defendants is yet to begin. In this situation, it is apparent that the parties are certain about the shop in possession of the defendants and it is not the case of Respondent No.1 that they are occupying more than one shop. Hence, the 2 impugned order cannot cause any prejudice to anybody in the matter. The respondents can recall plaintiffs if they want for further cross examination and/ or they can use it in their own evidence to their benefit. The impugned order is, therefore, quashed and set aside. The amendment be carried out before trial Court by 8th March 2010. Liberty to the defendants to carry out the consequential amendment thereafter, if any. Writ Petition is disposed of. Rule accordingly. No order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.