IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO 3915 OF 2008 Smt. Hemlataben S. Shah & Ors .. Petitioners V/s. K.E.C. International Limited& Another .. Respondents Mr.P.J. Thorat for the Petitioners Mr. P.N. Mehta i/b M/s. Desai & Chinoy for Respondent No. 1 CORAM : A.M. KHANWILKAR, J DATE : 03rd February, 2009. P.C.: 1. Heard counsel for the parties. This petition takes exception to the order passed by the Small Causes Court at Bombay dated 18.02.2008 in interlocutory notice no. 55 of 2006 whereby request made by the Plaintiffs for amendment of plaint so as to ask for further reliefs in pending suit has been granted. The decision is criticized essentially on two grounds, firstly that the relief of possession was available to the Plaintiffs when the suit was instituted in December 2002 as the Plaintiff was dispossessed in anterior point of time in October 2002. In spite of that, this relief was not claimed. Consequently, same was relinquished or waived and for which reason, 1 it is not open to the Plaintiffs to ask for the said relief at this distance of time. The argument though attractive clearly overlooks that the Plaintiffs had applied to the Trial Court to grant relief to amend which application is in context of power to be exercised by the Court under sub-rule 3 of Rule 2 of Order 2 of C.P.C reported in 1994 Mh.L.J. 812 [Canning Mitra Phonix Ltd Vs M/s. Popular Constructions and another] Para 6. Once the Court has exercised that discretionary power in favour of Plaintiffs, there is no question of any infirmity in the order permitting the Plaintiff to amend the plaint so as to ask the further reliefs which are not specifically asked in the suit as filed. The next argument of Petitioner is that the basis on which the Court below proceeded to exercise discretion in favour of the Plaintiffs is improper. The Court below has observed that the Plaintiffs have already asked for mandatory order and injunction for restoration of possession. Although, this argument may be valid, the fact remains that the Court has conveniently exercised discretion in favour of Plaintiffs and permitted the Plaintiffs to amend the plaint. 2. The said discretion has been exercised in the interest of justice which order needs no interference at the hands of this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction. 3. The next argument of the Petitioner is that the relief granted by the Court below if sustained, the consequence is that the Plaintiffs will 2 carry out amendment and ask for the relief which is expressly time barred. This argument clearly overlooks that the question whether relief was time barred or barred by law of limitation is a matter which can be answered at the appropriate stage of trial and cannot be the basis to deny the request for amendment of pleadings. Thus understood, even this submission does not commend to me. Taking overall view of the matter, therefore, petition stands fail. The same is dismissed. (A.M. KHANWILKAR, J) 3