WP. 1404-11 - 1 - VPH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL WRIT PETITION No. 1404 OF 2011 Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. ...Petitioner Vs. Kumar Builders (Mumbai) ...Respondent *** Mr. S. R. Page, for the Petitioner. Ms. Ferozana Behramkandis i/b FZTS & Associates, for Respondent. *** CORAM: V. M. KANADE J. DATE : MARCH 21, 2011 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the respondent. Petitioner is the original defendant. It had filed an application for amendment of the written-statement. It is submitted that the plaintiff had not produced the resolution of the Company and therefore, the suit according to the defendant, could not be filed. The petitioner/defendant had also cross-examined the plaintiff’s witness on that point. The contention of the petitioner herein is that it filed an application for amendment of the written-statement in order to WP. 1404-11 - 2 - incorporate this fact in the written-statement. This application for amendment in the written-statement was rejected. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner/defendant filed the present writ petition. 2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, on the other hand, submits that in the plaint itself, the particulars of the plaintiff have been mentioned and the defendant ought to have filed a written-statement at that stage. He submitted that when the arguments are over, the matter was kept for pronouncement of the judgment on 29th March, 2011. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial Court may be directed to consider this aspect in its judgment. In my view, at this stage it is not necessary to interfere with the impugned order passed by the trial Court, since the arguments are over and the matter is reserved for judgment. It is an admitted position that the defendant’s counsel has cross-examined the witness on this point. That being the position, whatever the legal effect of the answers given by the plaintiff’s witness, will have to be considered by the trial Court in its judgment. Hence, it is not necessary to interfere with the impugned. Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed. [ V. M. KANADE J.]