1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 4044/2010 Sureshchandra Bansilal Kochar Vs. Prakashchandra Bansilal Kochar and another. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. Mr. S. P. Palshikar, Adv. for the petitioner. CORAM: B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 2nd SEPTEMBER 2010. Advocate Palshikar states that because of his health problem and subsequent operation at Ahmadabad the petitioner could not give necessary instructions when plaint was drafted and also got late in pointing out facts necessitating amendment. According to him, in this situation, leave to amend ought to have been granted. The trial Court has considered these reasons and also the proposed amendment. The facts show that he has filed Civil Suit and the trial Court has noticed that there would be drastic change and the amendment application is coming after taking four adjournments for leading evidence. I do not find any jurisdictional error warranting interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Writ Petition is not entertained. However, the petitioner is at liberty to challenge the impugned order, after the suit is finally decided, if the occasion therefor arises. JUDGE Ambulkar.