1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. Writ Petition No. 1752 of 2008. Ratnakar M. Thakre ..vs.. Sau. Shakuntalabai K Girhe ----------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances,Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Coram: A. H. JOSHI, J. Dated: 29th APRIL 2008. 1. This Court had directed the petitioner to serve Advocate for plaintiff/respondent. The petitioner was also permitted to place on record amended plaint and copy of amended application, etc. 2. Learned Advocate for the petitioner has served intimation on the plaintiff, and he is represented. 3. Learned Advocate Mr. Ramteka prays for adjournment for enabling him to file additional documents. Prayer for adjournment is refused. 4. Heard learned Advocate S.G. Ramteke holding for Advocate S. P. Kshirsagar for the petitioner and learned Advocate Mahesh Masodkar, for respondent No.1. 5. Considering the urgency shown at the time of first hearing, the matter is listed and is being 2 taken up. 6. On perusal of application for amendment annexure-II and impugned order. It is seen that the plaintiff is amplifying his plea. 7. Learned Advocate for the plaintiff has brought to the notice of the Court the documents on the basis of which the amendment is now being made are already on record in other proceedings and as the plaintiff's case was not properly narrated, the amendment was sought and is allowed. Moreover, the trial Court has compensated the defendants by payment of costs to over come any inconvenience. 8. Considering these matters, this Court finds that no serious prejudice is caused or would be caused to the defendant, since the amendment is allowed. The suit being old by itself is not nor can be a ground for rejecting application for amendment. 9. In the result, petition deserves to be dismissed and it is dismissed. JUDGE andurkar.