IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 192 OF 2009 MR. ANTONIO LOBO AND 6 ORS., ... Petitioners Versus MR. ANDREW DOMINGOS SIMOES AND 13 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. V. P. Thali, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. D. Pangam, Advocate for Respondents. Coram:- B. P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. Date:- 19th June, 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT Rule returnable forthwith. 2. Taken up for final disposal by consent. 3. Heard learned Counsel for both sides. 4. The petitioner/plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration and re-demarcation of land as also permanent injunction. The grievance appears to be that part of survey no. 130/1 belonging to him has been wrongly included in survey no. 130/2. To put the record straight, this position which appears after reading of entire plaint was sought to be clarified in paragraph 5, which describes the suit property. Respondent nos. 1 and 2 (as defendants nos. 1 and 2), in fact gave their No Objection to the proposed amendment. The Trial Court, however, rejected that application on the ground that a new case was sought to be made out and, therefore, the nature of suit underwent change. 5. Advocate Thali argues that this finding is erroneous because by adding another survey number, nature of the suit was not being changed at all. Advocate Shri Pangam, who appears for respondents, states that though objection was given by respondent nos. 1 and 2, the other respondents had opposed the prayer. He states that nature of controversy undergoes change and an exparte temporary injunction is operating against the respondents in the matter. 6. Advocate Thali states that application for amendment and clarification sought therein is having no bearing on application on temporary injunction and that issue can be considered independently by the Trial Court. 7. Perusal of plaint and particularly paragraph 5 and 20 shows that grievances, as canvassed, finds mention and paragraph 20 in fact mentions survey no. 130/2. By adding a particular survey number, the nature of suit does not undergo any change. The suit is still at initial stage and application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 is now fixed for passing Orders. In the circumstances, no prejudice will be caused to the respondents if the amendment is allowed as it is only clarificatory in nature. Accordingly, the impugned Order dated 31.01.2009, passed below, exhibit 28, is hereby quashed and set aside and said application is allowed. Petitioner/plaintiff to carry out necessary amendment by 04.07.2009. Liberty to respondents to carry out consequential amendment within two weeks thereafter. 8. It is made clear that the amendment affected shall not enable the plaintiff to have any re-hearing of his application for temporary injunction. 9. Writ Petition is accordingly allowed, however, without any Order as to costs. B. P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. arp/*