:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 802 OF 2008 Auto Body (Bombay) Pvt.Ltd. ..Petitioner Vs. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation ..Respondent Mr. Anil Subramaniam for petitioner. Mr. G.S. Hegde for respondent. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. Date : April 11, 2008. Date : April 11, 2008. Date : April 11, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard Mr. Subramaniam the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Hegde appears for the respondent-Corporation. 2. By the impugned order dated 21/11/2007 the learned 12th Joint Civil Judge, S.D., Pune was pleased to reject the application at Exh.20 filed in Special Civil Suit No. 283 of 2003. 3. The suit has been filed by the petitioner for the recovery of Rs.1,08,52,183/- from the respondent-corporation and the said claim is based on the clause of price variation i.e. Clause No.8 of the :2: Purchase Order. The issue of limitation was also raised by the Corporation in its Written Statement filed on 11/9/2006 and the issues were framed on 21/9/2006 at Exh.17. The plaintiff claimed that to deal with the issue of limitation, the plaint was required to be amended and hence sought leave to incorporate proposed para 9(a). 4. It is clear that the plaintiff in the original plaint itself has stated the cause of action to have arisen in 2000 i.e. 7/3/2000 and in support of this plea the petitioner’s right to adduce the oral as well as documentary evidence is not taken away. There is no need to amend the plaint when the petitioner has an option to defeat the plea of limitation by adducing evidence. Hence, the view taken by the trial court cannot be termed as patently erroneous so as to call for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. 5. The petition is rejected summarily. :3: (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.)