dgm gm gm IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO.7070 OF 2008 PETITION NO.7070 OF 2008 PETITION NO.7070 OF 2008 Swarna Kapoor alias Zariwala ...Petitioner Vs. U.Raghvendra Acharya & ors. ...Respondents. Mr.A.Y.Sakhare, Senior Advocate i/by.Mr.Rupesh Nalavade for the Petitioner. Mr.N.V.Walawalkar, Senior Advocate with Mr.R.M.Nakhwa i/b.Mr. Vasant Dhavan for respondents 1 and 2. CORAM CORAM CORAM : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. DATED DATED DATED : 24th October, 2008. : 24th October, 2008. : 24th October, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. The main dispute is between the landlord and the tenant. The decree is already passed against the petitioner. The hearing of appeal is going on. The petitioner is claiming to be the tenant has filed this petition. As the parties are common and the impugned orders arising out of the same Suit, I am disposing the present by this common order. 2. The learned senior counsel for the respondents/landlord says that in view of clear provisions of law, the Court can, at the time of final hearing of the Appeal may permit the parties to urge new grounds. In the present case, the Court has already observed that "the Appellant can very well urge these points while arguing the matter and in fact on ( 2 ) these points Advocate for the Appellants already completed the arguments". It is further necessary to record that the Court has already granted amendment to the written statement and thereby the Appellant is allowed to amplify her earlier pleadings. In view of this, there is nothing further to interfere with the said order on Exhibit "27". 3. By order dated 29.09.2008 in Appeal No.204/2007 an application Exh. "28" was filed to amend the written statement. The Court, after considering the facts and the material on record, rightly observed that by filing certified copy of the decision of Writ Petition No.460/1998 which was disposed of 9.7.2008, the Appellant/petitioner can point out the finding given by the High Court which is on the record and, therefore, the amendment to written statement is not necessary. The finding given by the High Court is that the Suit building would not be liable to pay the repair cess from 16.05.1998. In the Memo of Appeal the ground is already raised referring to the said order of High Court. In view of this, therefore, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order on Exh. "28". 4. On Exhibit "29", the Court rightly refused to frame additional issues as the same was filed in the Appeal. ( 3 ) The Court has rightly observed as under: "...The proposed issue No.1 to 7 are the part and parcel of issue No.1 and 10. The proposed issue can be dealt while deciding the issue No.1 and 10. As regards to the proposed issue No.8, the Hon’ble High Court has already given instruction how to dealt this issue in Writ Petition No.2735 of 2008 dated 3.6.2008. " 5. The Appellate Court has rightly rejected the review petition on Exhibit "30" which arises out of Exh. "21" dated 23.09.2008. The Court has clearly observed that there is no case made out by the petitioner to review the earlier order under Order 47, Rule 1(C) of Code of Civil Procedure as there is no error apparent on the face of the record, whereby amendment was partly allowed. 6. Even otherwise, I have noted that though there is clear direction given by the High Court, the petitioner/tenant moving such applications delaying the hearing of the appeal. Therefore, apart from the merits as recorded above, I see there is no case made out by the petitioner to interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The orders are within the frame work of law and the record. There is no perversity. The petition is therefore dismissed. ( 4 ) ( ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)