1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2992 OF 2009 Sangram Tukaram Patil .. Petitioner. Vs. Tukaram Dhondiram Patil & Ors. .. Respondents. Mr.P.S.Dani for the petitioner. Mr.Surel S.Shah for respondent no.1. Coram: D.B. BHOSALE, J. Dated : 4TH AUGUST, 2009 P.C. . Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner has impugned an order dated 28.1.2009 by which the plaintiff’s (respondent no.1) application for amendment has been allowed. Mr.Dani, learned counsel for the petitioner confined challenge to the part of order by which the plaintiff was allowed to add C-DAC as party defendant in the suit. Mr.Dani submitted that C-DAC is his licensor and they have nothing to do with the issues involved in the suit and that they are not necessary and proper party to the suit. He further submitted that Respondent No.1 – plaintiff seeks to add C-DAC as party defenedant with a view to harass them. I have perused the impugned order and other material placed before the court. It is not clear as to what is the agreement between C-DAC and the petitioner. 2 Keeping that in view and considering that the amendment has already been carried out by the plaintiff and considering the nature of challenge I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of extremely limited jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence the petition is dismissed. (D. B. Bhosale, J.)