1 CRA 524/2011 abs IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATIONNO. 524 OF 2011 Pratosh Shrikant Koltharkar .. Applicant V/s Ajit Shankar Bhatkar & ors. .. Respondents Mr. R.K. Mendadkar for the applicant. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 9TH AUGUST 2011 P.C. : 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant. 2. The revision application deserves to be rejected for the reasons more than one. 3. The respondent no.1 (original plaintiff) applied for amendment which was allowed and he was permitted to carry out the amendment within a reasonable time. Since the amendment was not carried out within 14 days, the petitioner (defendant no.1) applied to the Court that the respondent should not be allowed to carry out the amendment. The trial Court rejected the application holding that the original order itself specifies that the respondent should carry out the 2 CRA 524/2011 amendment within a reasonable time and he was not required to carry out the amendment within 14 days. 4. Assuming without admitting that in view of order 6 Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short "the Code"), the respondent was required to carry out the amendment within 14 days, under section 148 of the Code the Court had a power to enlarge the time fixed. The trial Court therefore committed no error in rejecting the petitioner's application. 5. The present revision application is barred by proviso to section 115 of the Code which specifies that no revision shall be entertained by the High Court except where the order challenged, if it had been made in favour of a party applying for revision, would have finally disposed of the suit or other proceedings. If the impugned order would have been otherwise, that would not have disposed of the suit. For this reason, the revision is not maintainable. 6. The revision application is rejected. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)