1 CAW(l) No.15141/11 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION (L) No.15141 of 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO.3489 of 2011 Gufic Limited ... Applicant versus Himalaya Drug Company and Anr. ... Respondents ... Mr. V.R. Dhond i/b Jhangiani Narula & Associates for the applicant. Mr.Ankit Virmani i/b Wadia Ghandy and Co. for the respondents CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J DATED : 21st June 2011 P.C. 1. Mr.Virmani appears for the respondents and undertakes to file vakalatnama within a week. Undertaking is recorded and accepted. 2. This application is made for amendment of the writ petition and annexing a copy of the full text of the impugned order to the writ petition. 2 CAW(l) No.15141/11 3. Ordinarily, such application can be allowed without much debate. However, since the application is seriously opposed, I am recording the reasons for allowing the application. 4. The writ petition is directed against the order passed by the District Court on 19 April 2011. The writ petition was filed on 27 April 2011 i.e without about a week of the order. Counsel for the petitioner applicant submitted that the full reasons for the order was not available and the writ petition was filed on the basis of the operative part of order which was available immediately. Certified copy of the full order was obtained later i.e on 12 May 2011. Hence, the necessity of an amendment and requirement of annexing a full copy of the order. 5. Counsel for the respondent submitted that in the body of the writ petition, the petitioner has not disclosed that the copy annexed to the writ petition originally was not the full text of the order. They had suppressed the fact that it was a copy of the operative order and therefore, the writ petition should be dismissed on the ground of suppression of the facts. In support, he referred to and relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Prestige Lights Ltd Vs. State Bank of India (2007), 8 Supreme Court Cases 449. Counsel for the petitioner has explained that there was no deliberate suppression of facts and in view of the urgency, copy of the operative order with brief reasons that was available was annexed to the writ petition. It is only when the certified copy was received that the full copy is sought to be annexed to the writ petition. The explanation is reasonable and it cannot be said that 3 CAW(l) No.15141/11 there is a deliberate attempt to mislead the court and suppress any facts from the court. 6. Civil application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). Amendment shall be carried out within a week. Let the writ petition be placed on board for hearing on admission after two weeks. (D.G.KARNIK, J)