WP. 1880-11 - 1 - VPH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL WRIT PETITION No. 1880 OF 2011 Manglaben Harishankar Rawal ...Petitioner Vs. Himatlal Jayshankar Trivedi & Ors. ...Respondents *** Mr. Atul Damle i/b Manoj N. Nikose, for the Petitioner. *** CORAM: V. M. KANADE J. DATE : MARCH 21, 2011 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. The petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment & order dated 9th April, 2010 passed by the Appellate Bench, confirming the order passed by the trial Court dated 11-8-2009, below Exhibit 14 in RAE & R Suit No. 93/175 of 1997. 2. The brief facts are that respondent filed a suit against the petitioner/defendant for eviction on various grounds. During pendency of the said suit, an application was filed for adding one more ground, namely, the ground of bona fide requirement. The said application for WP. 1880-11 - 2 - amendment was allowed. Being aggrieved by the said order passed by the lower Appellate Court, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition. It is submitted that this ground of challenge is taken almost 12 years after the suit was filed. Secondly, it is submitted that in the said application no particulars were mentioned as to why it became necessary to file such an application after 12 years. 3. It is not possible to accept this submission. I have perused the said application filed by the plaintiff. In that application, he has clearly stated that his children are grown-up and therefore, it became necessary to add this additional ground. Both the Courts have considered this aspect. In my view, no case is made out for interference with the judgment & order passed by the trial Court, particularly when the trial Court has permitted the defendant to file the additional written-statement after the copy of amended plaint is served upon him. Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed. [ V. M. KANADE J.]