JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioners herein are the defendants in a suit for eviction which has been filed by the plaintiff-respondents on the ground of bona fide personal necessity. During pendency of the suit after framing of issues an application for introducing amendment in the suit was filed by the plaintiff-respondents only to the extent that their second grand son in due course of time also requires the suit premises for setting up his business. This amendment has been allowed by the trial Court against which this writ petition has been filed by the defendant-petitioners stating that the amendment could not have been allowed by the trial Court after commencement of the trial. 2. The defendants-petitioners have to bear in mind that a writ petition is not maintainable against a final order passed in a civil suit and it may be maintainable against an interlocutory order only in cases of grave miscarriage of justice. The impugned order surely does not fall into that category as the defendant-petitioners will have sufficient opportunity to address the Court on the effect of amendment allowed by the trial Court after efflux of time due to which another grand son of the plaintiff- respondents attained majority who wants to set up his business in the suit premises. Besides this, the amendment which has been allowed to be incorporated in the plaint neither changes the nature and character of the suit nor it enhances the scope of the issue regarding bona fide personal necessity. Hence, it cannot be held that the defendants-petitioners are prejudiced in any manner which could give them a cause to file this writ petition which is essentially u/Art. 227 of the Constitution for challenging the order passed in a civil suit. 3. The writ petition under the circumstance, stands dismissed.Writ Petition dismissed. *******