1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Writ Petition No.5441 of 2009 (Smt. Kamlabai T. Wankhede v. Prashant P. Shinde and another) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Shri A.A. Gupta, Advocate for Petitioner. Dr. Anjan De, Advocate for Respondents. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : DECEMBER 16, 2009. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner/plaintiff is challenging the order dated 8-10-2009 by which part of his application under Order 6, Rule 17 of the CPC has been granted and remaining part has been rejected after noticing that by the said part certain facts already within knowledge were sought to be brought on record without giving any explanation as to why those facts could not be earlier pleaded. The learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that these observations of the Trial Court are erroneous. He further states that there was no question of filling any lacuna. The learned counsel for the respondents have opposed these arguments. However, during the arguments, it has transpired that the proceedings in Regular Civil Suit No.52 of 2008 are already made time-bound by this Court. In these circumstances, as I find that the order cannot be said to be suffering from any jurisdictional error, I am not inclined to interfere at this stage in the matter. 2 Liberty is given to the petitioner/plaintiff to challenge the said order after the suit is finally decided, if occasion, therefore, arises. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. JUDGE pdl.