1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1638 OF 2010 Dinkar Pandurang Pawar .. Petitioner versus Bapu Daji Pawar .. Respondent Mr.T.D.Deshmukh for the petitioner. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 9th March 2010. P.C.: . Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The petitioner is the original defendant. By the impugned order, the learned trial Judge has permitted the respondent-plaintiff to carry out amendment to the plaint. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that a prayer incorporated in the earlier suit which was unconditionally withdrawn is sought to be incorporated by the proposed amendment and therefore the learned trial Judge could not have allowed the amendment. 2. I have considered the submissions. Even if the amendment is allowed, all defences of the petitioner-defendant remain open and appropriate contentions can be always raised in the additional written statement dealing with the amended plaint. The petitioner can always contend that the prayer added by the amendment is barred by express provisions of law. However, the order allowing amendment cannot be interfered with. 3. Subject to what is observed above, writ petition is rejected. If additional written statement is not filed by the petitioner, it will be open for the petitioner to do file additional written statement within a period of six weeks from today. (A.S.OKA,J)