1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 4502 OF 2008 (Smt. Joginder Kaur w/o Jai Singh Kalsi vs. Surjit Singh s/o Sardar Basant Singh Muddar) 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. OCTOBER 17, 2008. Heard Mrs. Seema Bhagat, learned counsel for the petitioner – plaintiff. The contention is that the trial Court has, after rejecting leave to file application for consequential amendment, allowed the application and permitted consequential amendment. It is contended that that has been done after five months and the plea being taken on record is contrary to plea in written statement. The reliance is placed upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. vs. Precious Finance Investment Pvt. Ltd., reported at 2007 (1) Mh. L.J. 331. The fact that the petitioner carried out amendment to plaint is not in dispute. The fact that the amendment as allowed is consequential is also not in dispute. The grievance is that the consequential amendment was once rejected and 2 that it is contrary to plea in written statement. If consequential amendment contrary to written statement is taken, it is for the respondent – defendant to explain and the petitioner – plaintiff does not stand to lose anything therefor. Similarly, the period of five months as sought to be contended is not very relevant because the hearing in the suit has not commenced and the suit is of the year 2006 only. The reliance upon the judgment of this Court above, therefore, is not very relevant as the trial Court has found the amendment to be consequential and has permitted it. It is no doubt true that the trial Court has rejected the application for grant of time to file application for consequential amendment earlier but then later on the trial Court has allowed consequential amendment in the interest of justice. I am not inclined to interfere in the matter in writ jurisdiction. However, in view of the grievance made by the petitioner – plaintiff, the respondent – defendant is trying to prolong the matter, Special Civil Suit No. 1232 of 2006 is expedited and the trial Court is directed to decide the same as early as possible. Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.