1 65.11-rpw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY. APPELLATE JURISDICTION. REVIEW PETITION NO. 65 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 213 OF 2007 Mather & Platt (India) Ltd. ... Petitioner. V/s. Depe Global Shipping Agencies Pvt.Ltd. ... Respondent. D.D.Madan, senior counsel i/b. Sonal Doshi & Co. for the petitioner. Haresh Jagtiani, senior counsel with Yashpal Jain, Suprabha Jain i/b. Haresh Jagtiani & Associates for the respondent. CORAM: B.R.GAVAI, J. DATED : 25th July 2011. P.C. : By this review petition, the petitioner is seeking review of the order dated 4th May 2011. 2. Mr.Madan, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the review petitioner submits that this Court has committed an error apparent on face of record in dismissing the petition which was filed by the petitioner challenging the order passed by the trial Court allowing amendment to the plaint. It is submitted that this Court has not noticed the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Lala Pancham, AIR 1965 SC 1008. Mr.Madan submits that by way of amendment the plaintiff had sought to incorporate a pleading that the order was fraudulently obtained by the defendant regarding reduction of capital. He submits that the Apex Court in the aforesaid case has held that if the ground of fraud is not made out initially in the plaint, the same cannot be allowed at a later stage. Mr.Jagtiani, learned senior counsel appearing for the 2 65.11-rpw respondent, on the contrary, submits that there is no error apparent on the face of record warranting invocation of review jurisdiction. 3. Firstly, the ground which is sought to be raised now by the petitioner was neither argued nor pressed into service by the petitioner when the petition was argued before this Court. 4. Be that as it may, even reliance on the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court is not well placed. 5. It is a settled principle of law that a particular sentence in the judgment cannot be read as a ratio of that judgment. It will be necessary to consider as to what were the facts before the Apex Court and in that context what has been held. The perusal of very next paragraph i.e. para­9 of the judgment would reveal that the Apex Court was considering the powers of the High Court under order 41 rule 27 of C.P.C. and the order of the High Court whereby the amendment was allowed at an appellate stage. In that context, the Apex Court has observed that the plaintiffs cannot be permitted to make out a new case for which there was not a slightest basis in the plaint as it originally stood. In the said case, it was contended on behalf of the plaintiff that an amendment as sought was found necessary due to the observation made by the High Court. In the present case, undoubtedly, the trial is yet to commence. The legislative intent is clear that all such amendments which are sought to be made prior to the commencement of trial are, generally, to be allowed. 6. In the above view of the matter, I find no error apparent on the face of record warranting review jurisdiction. The review petition is, therefore, rejected. (B.R.GAVAI, J.)