-: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.1799 OF 2008 M/s.Kantilal & Bros. : Petitioner (Orig.Defendant) V/s. Smt.Kanchanben Nandkishore Badshah & Ors. : Respondents (Orig.Plaintiffs) ... WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1820 OF 2008 M/s.Kantilal & Sons : Petitioner (Orig.Deft.) V/s. Smt.Kanchanben Nandkishore Badshah & Ors. : Respondents (Orig.Plaintiffs) ... AND WRIT PETITION NO.1821 OF 2008 Bipin Kantilal Doshi : Petitioner (Orig.Defendant) V/s. Smt.Kanchanben Nandkishore Badshah & Ors. : Respondents (Orig.Plaintiffs) ... -: 2 :- Mr.K.A.Shah with Mr.D.P.Shah for the petitioners. Mr.R. Tolat i/b. M/s.L.C.Tolat & Co., for respondent nos.1 to 3. ... CORAM : B.H.MARLAPALLE,J. DATE : APRIL 02, 2008. P.C. 1. All these petitions challenge the common judgement passed by the learned Judge of the Small Causes Court at Mumbai on 6.2.2008 allowing the amendment applications partly. Paragraphs 2 (b) and 2(c) of the Schedule to the proposed amendment were disallowed and, therefore, these petitions. 2. In paragraph 2(b), the issue that was sought to be agitated by amending the Written Statement was regarding the maintainability of the suit and the learned Judge in the impugned order noted that the said issue was finally settled on account of the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition no.3209 of 2001 decided on 9.4.2003. I have perused the said order passed by this Court and I am satisfied that the trial Court was right in rejecting the amendment proposed in paragraph 2(b) of the Schedule and if regard be had to the averments in paragraph 2(c), they are on the same lines as they have been stated in paragraph 2(b). -: 3 :- 3. It is also material to note that the last Written Statement was filed on 24.6.2003 and the amendment application was moved as late as on 11.12.2007 i.e. after four-and-a-half years and no justified reasons were made out as to why the last Written Statement should be amended after a long time of four-and-a-half years. The view taken by the trial Court cannot be termed as perverse or manifestly erroneous in dis-allowing the amendment application and, therefore, there is no case made out to interfere with the impugned judgement under Article 227 of the Constitution. 4. The Writ Petitions are rejected. The trial of the suits is expedited. B.H. MARLAPALLE, J.