1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 236/2011 (Dilip Dashrath Vairagade VERSUS Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj University) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri O.D. Kakde, counsel for the petitioner. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : JANUARY 21 , 2011 . By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order passed by the trial Court on 01.12.2010 rejecting an application filed by the petitioner for amendment of the plaint. The petitioner is the original plaintiff. He had filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction while challenging an order passed by the defendant-University. During the pendency of the suit, the Vice Chancellor, on 31.05.2010, issued direction no.10 of 2010 under Section 44(e) and 51(6) of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994. The plaintiff wanted to rely on this direction and, therefore, filed the amendment application. The trial Court, on an appreciation of the submissions made on behalf of the parties, by the impugned order dated 01.12.2010, rejected the application filed by the petitioner. The trial Court held that the suit was filed in the year 2001 and the proposed amendment was sought to be made belatedly after the issuance of direction no.10 of 2010, on 31.05.2010. Moreover, the trial Court held that the 2 direction no.6 mentioned that the direction shall come into force from the date on which it is issued. Considering the long pendency of the matter and the attitude of the petitioner, the trial Court has rightly rejected the application filed by the petitioner for amendment of the plaint. The apprehension made on behalf of the petitioner that the observations made by the trial Court in the impugned order about the applicability of the direction to the facts of this case would hamper the case of the plaintiff, seems to be ill-founded as the observations made by the Court while rejecting the application by the impugned order dated 01.12.2010 are prima-facie observations, made by the Court while considering the prayer for grant of amendment. Since the impugned order does not suffer from any jurisdictional error, the same cannot be interfered with, in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. The writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE