IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 561 OF 2010 MRS. MARIA LUIZA VAZ BARRETO AND ANR., ... Petitioners Versus MR. TONY VAZ AND ANR., ... Respondents Shri J. E. Coelho Pereira, Senior Advocate with Shri V. Braganza, Advocate for the Petitioners. Coram:- N. A. BRITTO, J. Date:- 28th July, 2010 P.C.:- Heard Shri J. E. Coelho Pereira, the learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the Defendants in R.C.S. No.148/2009/F. The plaintiff Tony Vas claiming to be the brother of Defendant Maria Luiza Vas Barreto filed the Civil Suit for declaration and injunction claiming that he was the co-owner of property surveyed under Chalta No.10 of P.T. Sheet No.15. The Defendants filed written statement and a counterclaim. The counterclaim was restricted to claim that plaintiff Tony Vas was not the brother of Defendant Maria Luiza Vas Barreto, and, consequently for cancellation of registration of the birth record of the plaintiff Tony Vas. Thereafter, on or about 2-11-2009, the Defendants purported to terminate the license of the plaintiff in relation to the suit property and raised a claim for mesne profits. Thereafter, on or about 13-7-2010 the Defendants filed an application to amend their counterclaim. This application has been rejected by the learned trial Court by Order dated 15-7-2010 wherein it is stated as follows:- "This court is of the view that such a counter claim by way of amendment to the original counter claim, cannot be permitted when the cause of action for the amended counter claim arose after the date of filing of the written statement and after the date for filing the defence has expired. In the present case there is a direction of the Hon'ble High Court to dispose of the suit by 31/10/2010. The said direction is only with respect to the suit. Issues have already been framed by this Court. The defendant Nos.1 and 2 can file a separate suit for eviction and mesne profits as cause of action for filing the counter claim has arisen on 6/12/2009". Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Defendants has relied on a decision of this Court in Sadanand Prabhu v. Shri Antonio Sebastiao Fernandes and another(1989(2) GLT 226) and submitted that the amendment to the counterclaim could have been carried out by the Defendants. Particular reference is made to paras 17 to 23 of the Judgment. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that by not granting the amendment to the counterclaim the learned trial Court has committed a jurisdictional error. I have perused the decision cited and the observations made therein. The Defendants are always free to raise a separate claim against the plaintiffs for their eviction as well as mesne profits as observed by the learned trial Court in para 12 of the impugned Order. The impugned Order, therefore, has not caused any injustice to the Defendants. There is no jurisdictional error involved in this Writ Petition. I am therefore not inclined to entertain this Writ Petition in extraordinary jurisdiction in view of the law laid down in the case of Abdul Razak(dead) through L.Rs. and others v. Manguesh Rajaram Wagle and others((2010) 2 SCC 432). Writ Petition is therefore hereby dismissed. N. A. BRITTO, J. RD.