1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 1644 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. WRIT PETITION NO.: 1644 OF 2011 *** 1. Heard Advocate Shri Warma for Petitioner/ defendant. He points out written statement to urge that facts disclosing lesser valuation in plaint are already pleaded. Amendment in written statement was sought only to point out co-relation of those facts with pecuniary jurisdiction. According to him, as valuation of suit exceeds Rs.1 Lac the matter ought to have been placed before Civil Judge, Senior Division. He further states that suit is not at that advance stage to warrant rejection of prayer for amendment. 2. Perusal of impugned order reveals that respondent/ plaintiff filed his affidavit for examination in chief and thereafter for two years the matter remained pending for his cross examination by petitioner. After two years, instead of proceeding to cross examine him, the proposed amendment was sought. 2 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 1644 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. 3. Trial Court has correctly appreciated the controversy and looked into all relevant aspects. There is no jurisdictional error or perversity. Petition is rejected. 4. The contention, however, is kept open and petitioner is at liberty to challenge the order of trial Court after suit is finally decided, if occasion therefor arises. [B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J.] Dated:08/03/2011. ans/1644