1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITIONS NOS.718, 719 & 720 OF 2009 WRIT PETITION NO.718 OF 2009 M/s. Nova Shares and Securities, Represented by Mr. Rajesh Chheda & Anr. …. Petitioners V/s Mr. Kucku Verghese & Anr. …. Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.719 OF 2009 M/s. Nova Shares and Securities, Represented by Mr. Rajesh Chheda & Anr. …. Petitioners V/s Mr. Abraham Chandi Represented by Mrs. Elizabeth Chandi & 2 Ors. …. Respondents AND WRIT PETITION NO.720 OF 2009 M/s. Nova Shares and Securities, Represented by Mr. Rajesh Chheda & Anr. …. Petitioners V/s Mrs. Elizabeth Chandy & 2 Ors. …. Respondents Mr. S.M. Singbal, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. R. Menezes, Advocate for Respondents Nos.1 & 2. Mr. A.D. Bhobe, Advocate for Respondent No.3. CORAM : N.A. BRITTO, J. DATE : 5/08/2010 ORDER : Counsel submits that all these three petitions can be disposed of by common order. 2. The petitioners are the defendants. The respondent no.1 is the plaintiff. 3. The plaintiff has filed a suit for recovery of certain sums of 2 money with interest, from the defendants. The plaintiff had relied upon promissory notes executed by the defendants. Subsequently, the plaintiffs have carried out an amendment to say that the amounts which they paid to the defendants were paid by virtue of the cheques issued by the defendants. That amendment has come to be allowed by the impugned order of the learned trial Court. By the impugned order, the learned trial Court has kept the issue of limitation, open observing that it would not relate back to the date of filing of the suit. 4. Counsel on behalf of the petitioners, submits that the amendment application could not even be allowed in view of the proviso to Order 6, Rule 17, CPC. The learned trial Court proceeded on the basis that the suit was filed on 23/04/2002 and the said proviso came to be inserted w.e.f. 1/07/2002 and, therefore, would not operate retrospectively. Counsel on behalf of the petitioner submits that the said proviso being procedural, in nature would work retrospectively and in that regard has placed reliance on the case of Kashinath Tima Gavde & Anr. V/s. Narayan Sadashiv Dhavlikar (expired) through LR's Vijaya Narayan Dhavlikar & Ors. (2002 (1) GLT 29) and on the case of Shri N.B. Dhargalkar V/s. M/s. Suvarna Industries (1996 (1) GLT 249). 5. I do not propose to enter into the controversy raised on behalf of the petitioners in this Writ Petition. The impugned order is an 3 interlocutory order which allows an amendment. No prejudice nor injustice can be said to have been caused to the defendants who are always at liberty to cross-examine the plaintiffs. In fact, the plaintiffs only seek to produce the said cheques to prove that they had lent money to the defendants, which is otherwise disputed by the defendants. 6. Considering the facts of the case, and keeping in mind what the Apex Court has stated in the case of Abdul Razak (dead) through LR's & Ors. V/s. Mangesh Rajaram Wagle & Ors. (2010 (2) SCC 432), I am not inclined to entertain these Writ Petitions or interfere with the impugned orders. Writ Petitions therefore are disposed of. N.A. BRITTO, J. NH/-