1 pdp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORIDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL LODGING NO. 742 OF 2008 IN CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 576 OF 2007 IN SUMMARY SUIT NO. 1586 OF 2001 State Bank of Hyderabad .. Appellant Vs. RABO Bank .. Respondent Ms. Manisha Pant i/by Bhave and Co. for appellant. CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, JJ. February 11, 2010. P.C. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant-Bank. Chamber Summons No. 576 of 2007, which was filed in Summary Suit No. 1586 of 2001, has been allowed so as to allow amendments to the plaint. It is well settled that such an order is not appealable, unless it is demonstrated that the amendments so allowed have adversely affected the opposite party. In 2 the instant case, the Chamber Summons has been allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) which indicates that the schedule of amendments has been allowed in its entirety. We have gone through the same and given our anxious consideration. In our opinion, the amendments, so allowed, are only setting out some additional events based on the documents which were in existence but not filed along with the plaint originally and the events mentioned are all prior to the date of filing of the suit. The appellant is not prevented from filing an additional Written Statement so as to deal with the amended plaint. Hence, this appeal must fail at the threshold and the same is hereby dismissed in limine. (SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI,J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)