1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.10392 OF 2009 Tushar Shantilal Soni .. Petitioner versus Smt.Pramila Pandurang Golambade .. Respondent Mr.S.S.Jain for the petitioner. Mr.P.N.Karlekar i/by Mr.R.R.Arolkar for the respondent. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 15th March 2010. P.C.: . Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. By this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged an order of the trial Court by which application for amendment of the plaint has been allowed. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that a new stand is sought to be taken by the proposed amendment. He submitted that the plaintiffs had knowledge about the documents on which amendment is based as the said documents were annexed to the suit filed by the petitioner. He submitted that the proposed amendment is barred by limitation. 2. I have considered the submissions. Even if application for amendment is allowed, the issue of bar of limitation always remains open which can be agitated by filing additional written statement. Even the issue regarding 2 maintainability of the prayer sought to be added by amendment always remains open. The amendment was necessary for avoiding multiplicity of proceedings. 3. No case for interference in writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is made out. It is, however, made clear that all contentions of the petitioner on merits including bar of limitation and maintainability of the prayers added by amendment are kept open. The said contentions can be raised by the petitioner by filing additional written statement. 4, If additional written statement is not filed till today, the same shall be filed within a period of eight weeks from today. Subject to what is observed above, writ petition is rejected. (A.S.OKA,J)