1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2319 OF 2009 Suresh Mulchand Shah .. Petitioner versus Swarada Suresh Patil .. Respondent Mr.Anilkumar Patil for the petitioner. Mr.Umesh R. Mankapure for the respondent. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 26th August 2009. P.C.: . Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The petitioner is the 1st defendant and the respondent is the plaintiff. By the impugned order the learned trial Judge has permitted the respondent-plaintiff to carry out amendment to the plaint for incorporating relief of possession. 2. Apart from other grievances, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner pointed out that in paragraph 8 of the impugned order the learned trial Judge has already recorded a finding that the bar of limitation will not be 2 attracted. 3. After having considered the submissions, I find that there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order in this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. However, it needs to be clarified that the issue of limitation is expressly kept open. By filing additional written statement, the petitioners can always raise the said issue. Subject to what is observed above, no case for interference is made out. Petition is rejected. (A.S.OKA,J)