1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3203 OF 2009 Mahiboobsaheb Kadarsaheb Manure & Ors ...Petitioners vs. Ayodhyabai Ramchandra Chandak ...Respondent Mr.A.A.Valsangkar a/w Mr.Pankaj Das for the petitioners Mr.Niranjan Shimpi for the respondent CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 22, 2009 P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. The petitioners are the original defendants and the respondent is the original plaintiff. An application for amendment of the plaint was made by the respondent- plaintiff which was rejected by the trial court. In a writ petition filed by the respondent, the said order was set aside and the respondent was permitted to carry out amendment to the plaint. By the impugned order, the respondent-plaintiff has been permitted to adduce evidence in support of the amended plaint. 2 The learned counsel for the petitioners invited my attention to the assertions made in the application for amendment in which it is stated that the amendment was clarificatory in nature and new facts were not being introduced. He invited my attention to the evidence which is already on record. He invited my attention to the averments made in the petition for challenging the order rejecting the application for amendment. He submitted that the suit is at the stage of hearing of the arguments and therefore, further evidence cannot be 2 permitted. 3 I have given careful consideration to the submissions. Perusal of the application for amendment shows that it was sought to be made for expansion of facts . While allowing the application for amendment, this court has not prevented the respondent from leading evidence on the basis of the amendment. All that this court has observed is that proposed amendment does not change the nature of the suit. The result of the impugned order is that the respondent-plaintiff has been permitted to lead further evidence on the basis of the amendment carried out to the plaint. It is obvious that further evidence will be confined to the amendment carried out to the plaint. There is no error committed by the Trial Court. 4 Subject to what is observed above, no case is made out for interference in writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Writ Petition is rejected. JUDGE