1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5788 OF 2008 Danascene Anthony Pereira. ..Petitioner. V/s. Vasantlal K. Rajbhar & Anr. ..Respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.5794 OF 2008 Danascene Anthony Pereira. ..Petitioner. V/s. Shobhnath Bhusu Dhobi & Ors. ..Respondents. Ms.E.A.Gonsalves for petitioner. Mr.T.D.Singh for Respondent No.1. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J DATE : AUGUST 13, 2008. DATE : AUGUST 13, 2008. DATE : AUGUST 13, 2008. P.C. : P.C. : P.C. : 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. In my opinion, no interference is warranted against the discretionary order passed by the Court below for the reasons recorded in paragraph-4 of the impugned Order dated 17th July, 2008. The Court has taken the view that the amendment if allowed will not change the nature of suit and also not barred by limitation. The amendment was necessitated on 2 account of subsequent events. In the circumstances, the view taken by the Court below being a possible view, no interference against the discretionary order is warranted. Hence Petition deserves to be dismissed. 3. However, the Petitioner is permitted to file Written Statement in the context of the amended pleadings within two weeks from today, to be presented before the trial Court. 4. It is made clear that granting amendment does not by itself result in acceptance of the case pleaded by the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff will have to prove the case as pleaded, so as to succeed in getting relief as per the amended prayer clause. All these questions will have to be considered by the trial Court on its own merits in accordance with the law. 5. Petition disposed of on the above terms. (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J)