Lsp 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 PETITION NO. 564 of 2009 Mr.Mohamad Shafi Miya Patel ...Petitioner v/s. M/s. Varun Enterprises & anr. ...Respondents Mr. Shreekant V. Gavand for the petitioner. CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR,J. : A.M.KHANWILKAR,J. : A.M.KHANWILKAR,J. DATED DATED DATED : MARCH 18, 2009 : MARCH 18, 2009 : MARCH 18, 2009 P.C. . Heard Counsel for the Petitioner. 2. The order impugned in this Petition is to allow the plaintiff to carry out amendment in the plaint. That being a discretionary order and for good reasons recorded, no interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction is warranted. 3. Counsel for the Petitioner, however, contends that by this amendment property which is not the subject matter of agreement is being included. The argument that no relief can be granted in relation to such property may be relevant at the appropriate stage either to consider grant of interim-relief in relation to the said property or the final relief at the end of the trial. The Court below obviously will consider those aspects on its own merits in accordance with law. 2 4. Counsel for the Petitioner would then contend that the Petitioner has already filed application before the trial Court for striking out pleadings in the plaint. However, that application has not been considered. That grievance cannot be made in the present Petition. The Petitioner, if so advised, may question the correctness of that decision which will have to be decided on its own merits. 5. Dismissed. [A.M.KHANWILKAR,J.] [A.M.KHANWILKAR,J.] [A.M.KHANWILKAR,J.]