1 (WP 2203 of 2011) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2203 OF 2011 Farokh Jal Pardiwall ...Petitioner (Org. Defendant) Vs. Abu Sufiyan Rahimulla Shaikh and Ors. ...Respondents (Org.Plaintiffs) ----- Mr. Chandra Naik for Petitioner Mr.M.M. Bagadea for Respondent Nos.1(a) to 1(c) ----- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED: 15th June, 2011 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and the Respondents. 2. The Petitioner is the original tenant and the Respondents are the original landlords. A suit was filed by the landlords for eviction on various grounds. Thereafter, an application for amendment was filed and it was allowed by the Trial Court. The Defendant filed an additional written statement. Thereafter another application was filed in which it was prayed that there are two typographical mistakes and in one sentence the 2 (WP 2203 of 2011) word “absolute” before the word “ownership” was inadvertently not typed since the word was not saved in the computer and secondly, the word “to” also inadvertently typed. It was contended that the Defendant may be permitted to carry out the said amendment and add word “absolute” and delete the word “to. It was also contended that the Defendant may be permitted to add two more grounds in the written statement. It was contended that the Defendant for the first time came to know about the facts mentioned in the grounds only after inspection was given by the Plaintiffs. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents, however, submitted that there is a concurrent order passed by both the Courts below and, therefore, this Court while exercising its jurisdiction under section 115 of CPC should not interfere with the said order. Secondly, it was submitted that cogent reasons were given by the Trial Court and the Lower Appellate Court while dismissing the application. Thirdly, it was submitted that the order was a procedural order and, therefore, this is not a fit case where this Court could interfere with the said order. 4. I have perused the impugned orders passed by the Trial Court and the Lower Appellate Court. In my view, no case is made out for interfering with the said orders 3 (WP 2203 of 2011) passed by the Lower Courts. It is always open for the Defendant to make submissions on the aforesaid points at the final hearing of the trial. Writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. (V.M. KANADE J.)