wp1798.11.odt 1/2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETN. NO.1798/2011 Sau. Asha Bhaskarrao Kharat -vs- Dinkar Laxman Bhosle ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders. or directions and Registrar's orders. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Shri R. L. Khapre, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri R. Darda, learned counsel for the respondent. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : 30.08.2011. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order passed by the trial Court on 19/01/2010 allowing an application filed by the respondent for permission to amend the written statement and consequential order dated 30/11/2010 of recasting the issues. It is the case of the petitioner that the trial Court ought not have granted the prayer for permission to amend the written statement, as the trial had commenced and the amendment application could not have been allowed in view of the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the petitioner cannot effectively challenge the order dated 19/01/2010 allowing the application for permission to amend the written statement as also the order dated 30/11/2010 allowing the application for recasting of the wp1798.11.odt 2/2 issues. It is necessary to note that the petitioner has acquiesced with the order passed by the trial Court on 19/01/2010. It appears that after the trial Court allowed the application for amendment subject to payment of costs of Rs.300/- by the defendant to the plaintiff, the petitioner/plaintiff accepted the costs of Rs.300/- and also filed an application for permission to consequentially amend the plaint. The trial Court granted permission to the petitioner for consequential amendment of the plaint. In this background, since the petitioner has acquiesced with the order passed by the trial Court on 19/01/2010, the petitioner cannot be permitted to turn around and challenge the order which was initially accepted by the petitioner by accepting the costs of Rs.300/- and by consequentially amending the plaint. Since the impugned order dated 30/11/2010 recasting the issues is based on the impugned order dated 19/01/2010, the same also cannot be effectively challenged by the petitioner. In the result the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE KHUNTE