1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.10846 OF 2009 Rupee Co-operative Bank Ltd. .. Petitioner V/s Sargam Precision Components Pvt.Ltd.& ors. .. Respondents Mr.Kishor Tembe for the petitioner. Mr.Sanjan Kshirsagar for Respondent Nos.1 to 5. CORAM: A.S.OKA, J. DATE: 25th November, 2010. P.C.: 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 5. The petitioner is the disputant in a dispute filed under section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 before the Co-operative Court. An application for amendment of the written statement was made by the 2nd Respondent, which was partly allowed by the learned Judge of the Co-operative Court. The Revision Application preferred by the petitioner against the said order has been dismissed. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the application for amendment was moved after commencement of the trial. He submitted that the contentions which are sought to be raised by way of amendment could have been taken when the written statement was filed way back in the year 2002. He invited attention of the Court to the observations made by the trial Court to the effect that the prayer clauses 2 4(b), 4(c), 4(d) and 4(e) in the amendment application cannot be allowed. He pointed out that by granting prayer clause 4(f) of the application for amendment, even the said clauses have been permitted to be incorporated. He pointed out that grant of prayer clause 4(g) shows non-application of mind. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos.1 to 5 opposed the petition. However, he fairly states that there was no challenge to the observation made in the order of the Co-operative Court as regards prayer clauses 4(b), 4(c), 4(d) and 4(e). 4. I have considered the submissions. The amendment of the written statement has been permitted under the impugned order. The said order is a discretionary order. However, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is right to the extent that prayer clauses 4(b), 4(c), 4(d) and 4(e) of the application for amendment at Exh.85 could not have been granted in view of the finding recorded by the learned Judge of the Co- operative Court in the last paragraph of the impugned order. It is obvious that grant of prayer clause (g) of the said application is of no consequence and obviously the Respondents are not granted any relief by virtue of prayer clause (g). Hence, the impugned order dated 4th October, 2008 deserves to be modified. 5. The Petition is disposed of by passing the following order:- (a) The impugned order dated 4th October, 2008 passed below 3 Exhibit 85 is modified. The application at Exhibit 85 stands allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) thereof. (b) If the amendment is already carried out in terms of the impugned order, necessary amendment shall be carried out for deleting the amendment carried out in terms of prayer clauses 4(b) to 4(e). (c) All the contentions of the parties on merits are kept open. It is obvious that it will be open for the petitioner to apply for consequential amendment of the dispute. (d) Writ petition is partly allowed in the above terms. No order as to costs. Hearing of the dispute is expedited. (A.S.OKA, J.)