1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1268 OF 2009 Dattatraya V. Falgune. ..Petitioner. V/s. Sadashiv V. Falgune & Ors. ..Respondents. Mr.Harshad E. Palve for petitioner. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J DATE : MARCH 19, 2009. DATE : MARCH 19, 2009. DATE : MARCH 19, 2009. P.C. : P.C. : P.C. : 1. Heard Counsel for the Petitioner. 2. I find no reason to interfere with the discretionary order passed by the Court below at the interlocutory state. The argument of the Petitioner that the Court below has not considered the efficacy of amended provisions of CPC before allowing amendment of plaint clearly overlooks the finding recorded by the Court below that the proposed amendment is mere clarificatory in nature and pertaining to the subsequent events after institution of the suit. If it is amendment of pleading relating to subsequent event, the restriction in the amended provisions may not strictly apply. 2 3. Counsel for the Petitioner would then contend that the Court has not discussed the merits of the proposed amendment as to how the same would answer the real question of controversy. That is not what is expected from the Court at this stage. The Court has to prima facie record its opinion that the proposed amendment would be necessary for determining the real question of controversy between the parties. That opinion is recorded in the impugned order. Hence no interference is warranted. Hence dismissed. (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J)