IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 476 OF 2011 SHRI GURUDAS ALIAS SHANKAR KORGAONKAR., ... Petitioner Versus STATE OF GOA, THROUGH ITS CHIEF SECRETARY AND 12 ORS., ... Respondents Shri P. S. Lotlikar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri Guru Shirodkar, Government Advocate for Respondents Nos.1 to 8. Coram:- F. M. REIS, J. Date:- 9th November, 2011 ORDER: Heard Shri P.S. Lotlikar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. 2. The above petition challenges the order dated 23/02/2011 passed by the learned Adhoc District Judge-1 at Mapusa in Civil Suit No.41/2010, whereby an application filed by the respondents for amendment came to be allowed. 3. Shri Lotlikar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has vehemently argued the matter and pointed out that by the proposed amendment the cause of action has changed. Learned Counsel further submitted that as on the date of the filing of the suit the respondents had no cause of action to file the suit. Learned Counsel further submitted that by the proposed amendment the admission by the respondents is sought to be withdrawn by the respondents. Learned Counsel, as such, pointed out that the learned Judge has acted with material irregularity in exercising jurisdiction whilst passing the impugned order which calls for interference of this Court. 4. Having heard the learned Counsel and on perusal of the record, I find that the learned Judge whilst passing the impugned order has come to the conclusion that the proposed amendment is mere clarificatory in nature. On going through para 6 of the plaint, the claim of the respondents is essentially to claim a right of access through the property of the petitioner. As such, I find that by the proposed amendment the cause of action does not change and in any event it is well settled that admission can always be explained. No prejudice will be caused to the petitioner if the amendment is allowed. The petitioner has an ample opportunity to dispute the said allegation by filing an additional written statement. 5. Hence, I find no case is made out for any interference in the impugned order. Hence, petition stands dismissed. The petitioner is permitted to file additional written statement within four weeks from today to the amended plaint. F. M. REIS, J. NH