IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 590 OF 2008 SHRI. AUGUST THOME D'SOUZA ... Petitioner Versus THE ARCHDIOCESE OF GOA AND DAMAN THROUGH PROCURATOR (ATTORNEY) AND ANR., ... Respondents Mr. Nigel Da Costa Frias, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. V. Braganza, Advocate for Respondent No.1. Mr. J.E. Coelho Pereira, Senior Advocate with Mr. V. Korgaonkar, Advocate for Respondent No.2. Coram:- A. P. LAVANDE, J. Date:- 10th December, 2008 P.C.: Heard Mr. Nigel Da Costa Frias for the petitioner, Mr. V. Braganza for respondent no.1 and Mr. Coelho Pereira, Senior Advocate for respondent no.2. 2. By this petition, the petitioner challenges order dated 21/08/2008 passed by the Civil Judge Senior Division at Panaji in Regular Civil Suit no. 456/2000/B by which an application for amendment of the plaint has been dismissed. 3. The petitioner-plaintiff filed the above suit seeking declaration and injunction against the respondents-defendants in the year 1992. On 17/06/2008, the plaintiff filed an application for amendment of the plaint, urging grounds to challenge the consent decree which was challenged. The same was opposed by the defendants. By the impugned order, the said application has been dismissed. 4. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, I find that this is not a case in which this Court should exercise its extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. No doubt Mr. Costa Frias may be right to some extent in urging that no detailed reasons have been given for rejecting the amendment application. However, upon perusal of the application for amendment, I am satisfied that the proposed amendment is not necessary for deciding the real matter in controversy between the parties. As such, no purpose would be served by remanding the matter back to the trial Court to pass a reasoned order. The petitioner has not made out any case for interference by this Court against the impugned order. Hence, the petition is dismissed. A. P. LAVANDE, J. NH