gopi 1 app-lodg-416-11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL LODGING NO.416 OF 2011 IN CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.473 OF 2011 IN SUIT NO.2913 OF 2004 Vidyasagar Sah ..Appellant Vs. Survival Systems Ltd. & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. Pravin Samdani with Mr. N.A. Thakore and Deepa Panda i/b. Thakore Jariwala Associates for the Appellant. Jayesh Mestry with Kaushika Muthukumar for respondent No.1 i/b.RMG Law Associates. Mrs. Cynthia Pereira i/b. Rajani Associates for respondent No.2. Mr.Pradeep Sancheti & Ms. Hemali K. i/b. Vyas & Bhalwal for respondent No.3. CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C. J. AND GIRISH S. GODBOLE, J. 12 July 2011 PC: This Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is preferred against the order dated 16 June 2011 of the learned trial Judge of this Court allowing the Chamber Summons No.473 of 2010, by which the learned trial Judge permitted the applicant-defendant No.3-Oil & Natural Gas Corporation to amend its written statement in the suit. gopi 2 app-lodg-416-11.sxw 2. The learned trial Judge has already clarified in paragraph 12 of the impugned order as under:- “...Thus, the plaintiff accepts that factually O.N.G.C., has entered into contract with defendant no.2. However, it is the case of the plaintiff that defendant no.1 has secured and operated its contract for HUET and O.N.G.C., through defendant no.2 and defendant no.1 is receiving payment for HUET from defendant no.3 through defendant no.2. It would be open to the plaintiff to substantiate its case by leading evidence that though the contract is in the name of defendant no.2, the contract, in fact, really is with defendant no.1. In my opinion, this is a matter of evidence.” 3. It will also be open to the appellant-plaintiff to contend that defendant No.3 had made an admission which the said defendant has sought to withdraw by the amendment. 4. We have not gone into the merits of any of the contentions which the appellant-plaintiff sought to raise before us and which were already raised before the learned trial Judge. We make it clear that dismissal of the appeal on the ground that it challenges an interlocutory order may not be treated to be an opinion on merits of the controversy between the parties. We have not expressed any opinion on the contention of the appellant-plaintiff that defendant No.3 had made an admission which it has withdrawn. All contentions are kept open. 5. The learned trial Judge will decide the suit in accordance with law without being influenced by the observations made in the impugned order and also in this order. gopi 3 app-lodg-416-11.sxw 6. In view of this clarification and the observations, which the learned Single Judge has already made in paragraph 12 of the impugned order, the learned Counsel for the appellant does not press this appeal. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. CHIEF JUSTICE GIRISH S. GODBOLE, J.