1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.9248 OF 2009 Gani Abbas Fakir & Ors. .. Petitioners versus Tayarsha Mahammad Fakir .. Respondent Mr.V.R.Mankapure for the petitioners. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 6th January 2010. P.C: . Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners who are the defendants. By the impugned order, the trial Court has permitted the respondent-plaintiff to amend the plaint. The grievance made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is that the proposed amendment was barred by limitation. After having considered the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, I find that there was no reason for the trial Court to deny the prayer for permission to amend the plaint as the proposed amendment does not change the nature of the suit and the suit of the year 2008 is at a preliminary stage. Even if amendment to the plaint is allowed, issue of limitation always remains open which can be agitated by the petitioners by filing additional written statement. If additional written statement is not yet filed, the petitioners may do so without period of six weeks from today. Subject to what is observed above, no interference can be made in the writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Petition is rejected. (A.S.OKA,J)