-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3284 OF 2008 Smt. Sonaibai Zipru Tambe and another ... Petitioners versus Jagannath Namdeo Shete and others ....Respondents Mr. Dilip Bodake for the petitioner. CORAM: P.B. MAJMUDAR, J. DATE: JUNE 20, 2008. P.C. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. In my view, the trial Court has not committed any error of law or of jurisdiction in granting the amendment. The learned Judge has found that looking to the nature of the suit, it would not change the nature of the suit. The amendment was sought for by the plaintiff on the ground of change of circumstances which, according to the petitioner, has occurred during the pendency of the suit. 3. In my view, therefore, no interference is called for in the impugned order in exercise of this Court's jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Merely because the amendment is granted, it cannot be said that the Court has granted the reliefs prayed for in the amended -2- plaint. In view of what is stated above, the petition is rejected. 4. If any plea of limitation is raised by the other side, the trial Court has to decide the same as per the evidence on record. It cannot be said that simply by allowing an amendment, a time barred suit is brought within limitation. P.B. MAJMUDAR, J.