1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5711 OF 2007 Prabhat Theatres Pvt.Ltd. .. Petitioners Versus Mrs.Shalini V. Kibe & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.S.S.Kanetkar for petitioners Mr.V.G.Mujumdar for respondent Nos. 2 and 3. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 17th January 2008 P.C. . The Civil Appeal No.523 of 2004 in which the petitioners are the appellants are impugning the orders passed on 27th April 2007 rejecting two applications. Application Exh.18 was an 2 application by the petitioners seeking permission to lead documentary evidence. They filed about 9 documents annexed with the list along with the said application. Reply was filed to the said application and by the impugned order, the learned Judge has allowed the documents at Sr.No.3 and 4 and admitted them as additional documentary evidence. 2. Rest of the documents are not permitted to be produced. Insofar as this order is concerned, it is an order which is interlocutory. The appeal is still pending. In such circumstances, if the petitioners original appellants are aggrieved by the final order in the appeal, then, while impugning the same, they can raise appropriate pleas with regard to the rejection of the application (Exh.18) insofar as other documents are concerned. All contentions in that behalf of both sides are kept open. 3 3. The order below Exh.21 is an order rejecting an application for amendment to the written statement. 4. The reasons which are assigned by the learned Judge while disposing of Exh.18 at para 9 were enough to permit incorporation of para 1A and consequential and alternate pleas in the written statement. This is not a case where for the first time the same is being incorporated inasmuch as, para 1 of the original written statement had raised a specific plea with regard to extension of lease. Thereafter, allowing production and admitting letter dated 11th April 2001 in evidence on the ground that despite due diligence the said letter could not be produced, should have as a natural consequence, led the learned Judge to hold that even amendments would be permitted at the stage at which the matter is before him. No prejudice is going to be caused merely because the written statement is allowed 4 to be amended. In fact that would assist the court in resolving the controversy and adjudicate upon rival contentions effectively and properly. In these circumstances, the order under challenge passed on Exh.21 is quashed and set aside. Exh.21 is allowed. Amendments be carried out within two weeks from today and, thereafter, the learned Judge to dispose of Regular Civil Appeal No.523 of 2004 as expeditiously as possible. Petition disposed of accordingly. (S.C.Dharmadhikari, J)