wp1845.11.odt 1/2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETN. NO.1845/2011 M.Abraham V. Mathai and one another -vs- Smt.Manjulabai Balkrishna Pakhidde and others ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders. or directions and Registrar's orders. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Shri V.S. Dhabe, learned counsel for the petitioners. CORAM : R. M. SAVANT, J. DATED : 26/07/2011. The above petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order dated 29/10/2004 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nagpur, by which order the application for amendment of the counter claim filed by the respondents came to be allowed. The petitioners are the original plaintiffs in the suit being Regular Civil Suit No.1178/2003. The respondents filed an application seeking amendment of the counter claim in the written statement, the same was required to be filed in view of the facts, which they came to know later on. The said application for amendment of the written statement to include the counter claim was objected by the petitioners on the ground that the prayer sought by way of the counter claim was barred by limitation. The trial Court by keeping the said issue open to wp1845.11.odt 2/2 be agitated at the hearing of the said suit, allowed the said amendment application. As indicated above, it is the said order, which is impugned in the present petition. The trial Court was of the view that only on the ground of limitation the counter claim could not be rejected. Having perused the reasons cited by the trial Court in the impugned order, in my view, the order does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity for this Court to interject in its writ jurisdiction. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. However, it is made clear that the issues as regards the limitation, etc, are kept open for being urged in the said suit. JUDGE KHUNTE