1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.116 OF 2010 (NAVALKISHOR M. AGRAWAL & ANR...VS.. THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, GONDIA & ANR.) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri R.K.Borkar, Advocate for Petitioners. Shri Anoop Parihar, Advocate for Respondent No.1. CORAM : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : FEBRUARY 01, 2010. 1. Heard. 2. Addition of defendant No.2 (present respondent No.2) is sought to be projected as a reason for moving application for amendment of plaint by the petitioner/ plaintiff. The trial Court has found that the said addition was quite old and added defendant No.2 filed written statement on 20.01.2009. Thereafter issues were framed on 09.06.2009 and then an application for amendment was moved on 29.07.2009. 3. Perusal of the application for amendment shows that the petitioner/ plaintiff is raising challenge to construction of defendant No.2. Those challenges were open to him even when defendant No.2 was not party and in any case were within his knowledge when written statement was filed by defendant No.2 on 20.01.2009. Till framing of issues or even thereafter the petitioner/ plaintiff never moved the trial Court pointing out that he was intending to move any application for amendment. 2 4. Advocate Shri Borkar had tried to contend that after written statement was filed the information was required to be collected and that has taken time. However, perusal of the proposed amendment and application does not support this contention. 5. I, therefore, do not find anything wrong in the discretion exercised by the trial Court. However, it is made clear that it is open to the petitioner to challenge the said order after the suit is finally decided, if he is so advised. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. JUDGE RR..