1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 4020/2009. ( Ashok V. Tahilramani -: versus :- Smt. Maya Devi l. Moryani ) 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 : DECEMBER 15, 2009. Heard Shri A.Shelat, learned counsel for petitioner and Shri Bhangde, learned counsel for respondent. Petitioner / tenant has challenged order dated 02.09.2009 passed by the 5th District Judge, Nagpur rejecting his prayer to amend written statement. The Court has found that the amendment is really not necessary for deciding the controversy before it and in any case delay was not properly explained. The litigation is between respondent landlord and petitioner tenant. Against the order of eviction petitioner has filed Regular Civil Appeal No.136/2007. Therein an application for amendment was moved, contending that in Diwali, 2008 the petitioner / tenant got knowledge of two business run in the name of Sai Industries at two different places i.e. one at Naya Nakasha, Nagpur and another as 87, Wanjra Layout, Kamptee Road, Nagpur. On 2 the basis of this knowledge, the application was moved on 12.11.2008. Shri Shelat, learned counsel has tried to show that there is suppression of these businesses by the respondent / landlord. Shri Bhangde, learned counsel has invited attention to elaborate stand in this respect in written statement by the tenant, which was aimed at showing that son Dilip, for whom eviction was sought, was already settled in business. He states that written statement also disclose various business conducted by the Firm. It is apparent that, petitioner had opportunity to cross examine the respondent / landlord in relation to particulars of family, in relation to various business and also the need if any, flowing therefrom. The application for amendment as filed, prima facie does not make out any case of suppression. I therefore, do not find it necessary to go into more details at this stage, because the appeal is very much pending. The Lower Appellate Court has found that the amendment as sought is not necessary for effective decision of the case. In the circumstances, Writ Petition is disposed of, as no interference is warranted at this stage, with liberty to present petitioner to raise this issue again by challenging the order dated 02.09.2009, after final adjudication in appeal, if warranted. No cost. JUDGE Rgd.