1 LGC IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. APPELLATE JURISDICTION. APPELLATE JURISDICTION. LETTERS LETTERS LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.59 OF 2008 PATENT APPEAL NO.59 OF 2008 PATENT APPEAL NO.59 OF 2008 IN IN IN WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO.8950 OF 2007 PETITION NO.8950 OF 2007 PETITION NO.8950 OF 2007 The Chairman/Hon.Secretary, S.Veer Savarkar Hindu Education : Appellants. Trust & Anr. versus Ms.Hema P. Bele & ors. : Respondents. Mr.Deepak S. Jadhav for the appellants. Mr.V.S.Mansurkar, AGP, for the State. CORAM CORAM CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & J.P.DEVADHAR, J.P.DEVADHAR, J.P.DEVADHAR, J. J. J. DATED DATED DATED : MARCH 11, 2008. : MARCH 11, 2008. : MARCH 11, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. This appeal is directed against the 2 order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 13th December 2007 by which the Court declined to interfere with the orders passed by the School Tribunal dated 1st August 2007 and 18th October 2007. 2. The present appellants had filed an application for amendment of the Written Statement wherein it was originally stated that the appointment of the present respondents was on probation w.e.f. 1.6.2001 and that the resignation tendered by the respondent has been accepted. This plea was sought to be substituted by taking up the ground that the respondent was appointed as temporary employee and as such had no clear right to the post in question. This application was dismissed on 1st August 2007. According to the appellants, the said order was passed without hearing them. Therefore, an application was filed by the appellants herein for review of the said order dated 1st August 2007. The same was heard on merits and the appellants were also heard. Thereafter order dated 18th October 2007 was passed. 3 3. As is evident from the above facts and circumstances, it can not be disputed that by amending the Written Statement not only that the appellants were trying to withdraw their earlier statement but in fact were intending to introduce a case which was totally contrary to their original case. The appellants thus took the respondents by surprise by seeking to introduce entirely a new case. It is settled principle of law that admission of any statement may be explained but it is not permissible to introduce a new case which was not even indicated in the original pleading. If amendment is allowed great prejudice would be caused to the interest of the respondents and thus we find no reason to interfere with the order impugned in the present appeal. Hence the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. CHIEF CHIEF CHIEF JUSTICE JUSTICE JUSTICE J.P.DEVADHAR, J.P.DEVADHAR, J.P.DEVADHAR, J. J. J.