1 WP 9369/10 abs FARAD CONTINUATION IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 9369 OF 2010 ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Orders Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's Orders Mr. S.A. Wale for the petitioners. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 9TH DECEMBER 2010 P.C. : 1. Heard. 2. The petition is directed against the order dated 1st September 2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Tasgaon, rejecting the application of the defendant for dismissing the suit of the plaintiff­respondent. 3. The respondent filed a suit bearing R.C.S. No.149 of 2005 against the petitioner in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Tasgaon. 2 WP 9369/10 In the suit, the respondent made an application for amendment of the plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. By an order dated 13th February 2006, the application was allowed and the respondent carried out the amendment. The respondent challenged the order allowing the amendment. On 16th September 2009, the petitioner filed an application in the trial Court contending that the respondent had misrepresented the facts for seeking an amendment. He prayed that since the order for amendment was obtained by misrepresenting the facts, the suit should be dismissed. By the impugned order, the application was rejected. 4. If the application for amendment was made by the respondent by misrepresenting the facts and was allowed on the basis of such misrepresentation, the petitioner­defendant could have and ought to have challenged the order allowing the amendment. After lapse of 3 3 WP 9369/10 years, he cannot come forward and pray that the suit be dismissed on account of the alleged misrepresentation. There is no merit in the writ petition which is hereby rejected summarily. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)