1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 5987/2011 (SUMRAN DHANLAL DONGRE VERSUS SUSHANT SHIKSHAN SANSKAR SANSTHA (BHILEWADA) & OTHERS) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri G.D. Asole, counsel for the petitioner. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : DECEMBER 7 , 2011 . Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order passed by the School Tribunal on 14.11.2011 allowing an application filed by the management for amendment of the written statement-reply. Though the application was filed by the respondent-management at a belated stage when the matter was fixed for arguments, there is nothing wrong with the impugned order passed by the School Tribunal allowing the amendment application as the School Tribunal was of the view that the proposed amendment did not change the nature of the proceedings and the proposed amendment was helpful to the Tribunal for suitably deciding the issues framed in the case. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal thought that the management had not filed the amendment application with a view to protract the proceedings. The Tribunal was of the clear view that the dispute could be 2 adjudicated better on merits, in case the respondent- management was permitted to amend the written statement and raise the pleas on the main issues involved in the case. In any case, there would be no question of delaying the matter by the respondents as the respondents are not required to tender oral evidence and the matter could be heard on merits even on the next date of hearing. There is no jurisdictional error in the impugned order so as interfere with the same in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE