1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA Writ Petition No.103 of 2010 1. Smt. Savita Morajkar daughter of Shashikant Morajkar, married, major of age, resident of Curchorem village, Quepem, Goa. 2. Smt. Sarita Morajkar, daughter of Shashikant Morajkar married, major of age, resident of Curhcorem village, Quepem, Goa. 3. Shri Raghunath Shashikant Morajkar, son of Shashikant Morajkar, resident of Curchorem village, Quepem, Goa. Through their Power of Attorney Shri Shashikant Raghunath Morajkar aged about 69 years, resident of Curchorem, Goa. ... Petitioners V e r s u s Shri Ganba Fati Fal Dessai, 58 years of age, Resident of house No.79, Balli Cotto, Quepem, Goa. .... Respondents Mr. Sudesh Usgaonkar, advocate for the Petitioners. 2 Mr. Vivek Rodrigues, advocate for the Respondent. Coram: A. P. Lavande, J. Date: 29th September, 2010. Judgment Heard Mr. Usgaonkar learned advocate for the petitioners and Mr. Rodrigues advocate for the respondent. 2. Mr. Rodrigues, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the writ petition is not maintainable in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Prem Bakshi and ors Vs. Dharam Dev and ors. (2002) 2 SCC 2. Mr. Usgaonkar, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the judgment relates to jurisdiction of the High court under Section 115 of C.P.C. and as such is not attracted in the present case since the petitioner has filed writ petition challenging order dated 8/12/2009 passed by the Civil Judge, Sr. Divn., Quepem in Special Civil Suit no.3/2005/A allowing the application for amendment dated 3 23/09/2010. I am of the considered opinion that the ratio laid down in the case of Prem Bakshi is not attracted in the present case since the petitioner has filed writ petition challenging order dated 8/12/2009 passed by the trial court allowing the amendment application. 3. Rule. By consent heard forthwith. 4. Learned counsel for the parties have addressed arguments on merits. However, I deem it not necessary to go into the merits of the case since I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 8/12/2009 passed by the trial court allowing the amendment application is liable to be set aside on the sole ground that absolutely no reasons are given by the trial court while allowing the amendment application. The trial court was bound to give reasons while disposing of the application for amendment filed by the plaintiff. 5. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 8/12/2009 is quashed and set aside and the matter is 4 remanded to the trial court to decide the application in accordance with law. In the result therefore the impugned order dated 8/12/2009 is quashed and set aside and the trial court is directed to pass fresh order after hearing the parties in accordance with law. 6. It is made clear that all the rival contentions of the parties are kept open. 7. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs. A. P. Lavande, J. Ap/-