1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO.106/2011 M/s. Lithoferro A partnership Firm, Having its office at Khalap Mansion, Mapusa Goa, Represented by its Partners: 1. Shri Rajiv Meghashyam Nevgi, r/o. Khorlim, Mapusa, Goa 2. Shri Kausthubh Vinayak Sawkar, r/o. C-1/F1-F2, Eliza Estate, Karaswada, Mapusa, Goa 3. Smt. Vaishali Shriram Nevgi, r/o. Shriram Sadan, Dattawadi, Mapusa-Goa .. Petitioners. Versus 1. M/s. Resources International, A partnership firm, constituted under Indian Partnership Act, Represented by its Partners:- 2. Shri Deepak M. Rajani, Major, married, Indian, National, Businessman, C/o Sesa Ghor, 2nd floor, Entrance II, Patto Plaza, Panaji, Goa 3. Mrs. Meena Deepak Rajani, Major, married, Indian National, C/o. Sesa Ghor, 2nd Floor, Entrance II, Patto Plaza, Panaji- Goa. 4. Mr. Harish D. Rajani Major, married, Indian National, C/o. Sesa Ghor, 2nd Floor, Entrance II, Patto Plaza, Panaji-Goa. 2 (as per order dated 15/06/11 respondent no.4 is deleted.) .. Respondents Mr. Sudin Usgaonkar, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. S. D. Lotlikar, Senior Advocate and Mr. J. Godinho, Advocate for the respondents. CORAM : A. P. LAVANDE, J. DATE : 12 th July, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Usgaonkar, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents. 2. Rule. By consent, heard forthwith. 3. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged two orders dated 22nd September, 2010 passed in Special Civil Suit No.96/2003/C by which the application dated 21st February, 2004 for amendment which was sought to be amended by another application dated 3rd July, 2004 and another application dated 2nd November, 2004 by which the petitioners sought amendment of the plaint, have been dismissed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, 'C' Court, Mapusa. 3 4. The main ground on which the trial Court has dismissed the application, is that the applications were filed by the receiver, who was discharged in terms of the consent terms filed in Civil Suit No.203/1991 and as such, the applications filed by the plaintiff, were not maintainable. 5. Having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the respondents, I find that the ground on which the applications are dismissed is patently unsustainable in law. The applications were filed by the receiver, who was duly appointed by the Court and as such, was entitled to file the suit. No doubt, before the applications were decided, the receiver stood discharged. But this fact by itself would not render the applications not maintainable. The trial Court ought to have considered the applications for amendments on merits. On this sole ground, both the orders dated 22nd September, 2010 are quashed and set aside. The trial Court to decide all the three applications on their own merits after giving an opportunity of being heard to the parties, in accordance with law. 6. Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms with no order as to costs. A. P. LAVANDE, J. SMA