1 Anand IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1584 OF 2010 Shri Vilas Bharat Dhamne & anr. ..Petitioners V/s. Smt. Hiravati Jairampant Lagad ..Respondent Mr.A.K.Patil, Advocate, for the Petitioners Mr.V.B.Nashikkar, Advocate, for the Respondent CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 22ND APRIL, 2010 P.C. . The learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent states that as of today the Respondent has not withdrawn a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- which was deposited by the Petitioners in the proceeding arising out of a complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 2. The present Petitioners, who are the original Defendants, made an application for amendment of the Written Statement essentially for making a Counter claim for 2 possession. The application was made at a stage when an Affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief was filed by the original Plaintiffs. By the impugned Order, the learned trial Judge has rejected the application made by the Petitioners. The Order is interlocutory in nature which is capable of being challenged in an Appeal which may be preferred against the decree passed in the suit, if the same be adverse to the Petitioners. The rejection of the application by impugned Order shall not prevent the Petitioners from filing a substantive suit for possession on the cause of action pleaded in the proposed Counter-claim. 3. Subject to what is observed above, no case is made out for interference in writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Writ Petition is rejected. All contentions of the parties are expressly kept open. (A.S.OKA, J.)