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. 1797 of 2009 Sakharam Bala Mali Gaikwad(deceased) by LRs. Kisan Sakharam Mali Gaikwad & ors. ...Petitioner v/s. Ashok Janardan Phadnis & anr. ...Respondents Mr. Dilip Bodke for the petitioner. Mr. S.S.Kanetkar for the respondents. CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR,J. : A.M.KHANWILKAR,J. : A.M.KHANWILKAR,J. DATED DATED DATED : MARCH 21, 2009 : MARCH 21, 2009 : MARCH 21, 2009 P.C. . Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. I am not convinced with the stand taken by the Petitioners that the Petitioners have already raised the issue now sought to be inserted by way of proposed amendment in the original written-statement. The proposed amendment is not to give better particulars as such but to assert new material facts. The view taken by the Court below at this stage of the proceedings, therefore, do not merit interference. It is a discretionary order passed by the Court below in respect of which interference in exercise of powers under Section 227 is not warranted. 3. If the Petitioner has any grievance regarding the 2 correctness of the view taken by the Lower Court, it is always open to the Petitioner to agitate correctness thereof in the appeal to be filed against the final decision to contend that the same has caused prejudice to the Petitioner. If such plea is taken in the appeal against the final decision, the mistake committed by the Lower Court, if any, can always be remitted. Applying the principles stated by the Apex Court in the case of Surya Surya Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai & ors. reported in Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai & ors. reported in Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai & ors. reported in (2003) (2003) (2003) 6 SCC 675, 6 SCC 675, 6 SCC 675, in particular, in Paragraph 39, that the wrong done, if any, could be set right and the rights and equities can be adjusted in appeal or revision preferred at the conclusion of the proceedings, no interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction is warranted. Hence, dismissed. [A.M.KHANWILKAR,J.] [A.M.KHANWILKAR,J.] [A.M.KHANWILKAR,J.]