1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 3984 OF 2010. Vinod Khushaldas Daryanani -: VERSUS :- Sureshchandra Sukhanandan Adalkahia Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : AUGUST 18, 2010. Heard Shri H.D. Dangre, learned counsel for Petitioner and Shri R.M. Sharma, learned Counsel for respondent – sole. Petitioner, respondent in appeal/tenant carried out amendment during the pendency of the appeal and pointed out acquisition of subsequent knowledge about the employment of son of respondent /landlord. On the basis of that amendment, Appellate Court framed a point and fixed the matter for recording of evidence of landlord and his son. On that date, the petitioner filed an application for re- framing the said point, contending that the words appearing 2 therein qualified the amendment and restricted it to the date of filing of the suit. The prayer was therefore to delete that restriction. Appellate Court has rejected that application. Shri Dangre, learned Counsel contends that the alleged bonafide need was not accepted by the trial Court and hence respondent / landlord has filed Regular Civil Appeal. In that Appeal the petitioner carried out amendment to show that need of landlord was not in existence. By adding the words “at the time of institution of suit” in the point as framed, the appellate Court has changed the entire nature of the controversy. According to him, those words need to be deleted. Shri Sharma, learned Counsel has pointed out that the amendment does not point out any subsequent event, but only subsequent acquisition of knowledge and the issue or point as framed by the appellate Court is therefore in accordance with the said amendment and does not call for any interference. With the assistance of learned Counsel for the parties I, have perused the application for amendment as filed before the Appellate Court and the order passed upon it. Paragraph no.3 of that application clearly shows that reference was made to subsequent acquisition of knowledge 3 and the pleading as sought to be incorporated does not show that situation obtaining after the institution of the suit or then during the pendency of the appeal was sought to be brought on record. Paragraph no.3 of the application also does not show that subsequent events of closure of business by son and his joining employment was sought to be pleaded. The lower Appellate Court therefore has rightly connected and related that contention with position as prevailing on the date of institution of the suit. I therefore, do not find any error in the view taken by the lower Appellate Court. Writ Petition is therefore, rejected. No costs. JUDGE Rgd.