1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 163 OF 2010 1. Mrs. Greta Stelia Kotian e Lopes, of major age, widow of late James Lopes, resident of c/o Agnelo Rodrigues, Rodrigues Waddo, Sodiem, Siolim, Bardez, Goa, through its Power of Attorney Concepta Fernandes residing at Comprem, Tivim, Bardez, Goa. 2. Smt. Marry Lopes, daughter of late Shri Roque Lopes, of major age, the resident of Parra, Bardez, Goa. ... Petitioners versus 1. Mr. Victor Pinto, of major age, presently residing at H.No.1-132(Kodman), Farengi Pet 574143, Post Box No.12, South Kanara, Mangalore, Karnataka. 2. Mr. Antony Lopes, of major age, married, retired, r/o Creado House, 2nd Floor, Dadabhai Cross Road, Andheri(West), Mumbai 400 058. 3. Mrs. Sherly Lopes, of major age, married, retired, r/o Creado House, 2 2nd Floor, Dadabhai Cross Road, Andheri(West), Mumbai 400 058. 4. Smt. Rukmini Vithal Sawant, widow of late Vithal Hari Sawant, r/o H.No. 505, Vithal Waddo, Tivim, Bardez, Goa. 5. Mr. Hari Vithal Sawant, son of late Vithal Hari Sawant, major, married, r/o H.No.505, Vithal Waddo, Tivim, Bardez, Goa. 6. Mrs. Harsha Hari Sawant, wife of Hari Vithal Sawant, major, married, r/o H.No.505, Vithal Waddo, Tivim, Bardez, Goa. 7. Mr. Narendra Vithal Sawant, son of Vithal Hari Sawant, major, married, r/o H.No.505, Vithal Waddo, Tivim, Bardez, Goa. 8. Mrs. Vimal @ Namita Narendra Sawant, wife of Narendra Vithal Sawant, major, married, r/o H.No.505, Vithal Waddo, Tivim, Bardez, Goa. 9. Mrs. Lata Gopal Rane, daughter of late Vithal Hari Sawant, major, married. 10. Mr. Gopal Rane, major, married, service. Both residing at St. Christopher Complex, Opp. Tivim Village Panchayat, Tivim, Bardez, Goa. 3 11. Mrs. Shakuntala Rajan Moraskar, daughter of late Vithal Hari Sawant, major, married, r/o Mulgao, Bicholim, Goa. 12. Mr. Rajan Morajkar, major, married, service, r/o Mulgao, Bicholim, Goa. 13. Mrs. Rajani Vishram Sawal, daughter of late Vithal Hari Sawant, major, married, r/o Virdi, Sanquelim, Goa. 14. Mr. Vishram Sawal, major, married, r/o Virdi, Sanquelim, Goa. 15. Mrs. Greta Stella Kotian e Lopes, of major age, widow of late James Lopes, resident of C/o Agnelo Rodrigues, Rodrigues Waddo, Sodiem, Siolim, Bardez, Goa. 16. Mr. Edward Savio Pinto, 17. Neena Reshma Pinto, 18. Mr. Roque jams Pinto, 19. Connie Letilia Pinto, All are of major age, presently residing at H.No.1-132(Kodman), Farengi Pet 574143, Post Box No.12, South Kanara, Mangalore, Karnataka. ... Respondents 4 Shri J. E. Coelho Pereira, Senior Advocate with Shri A. Phadte, Advocate for the Petitioners. CORAM : N. A. BRITTO, J. DATE : 16TH APRIL, 2010. ORAL ORDER Heard Shri Coelho Pereira, the Learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the petitioners. The petitioners are the plaintiffs in R.C.S. No. 5/2001/B. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 have been deleted by Order dated 15-4-2010. The remaining respondents, namely respondent nos.4 to 14 have been duly served. They were not present yesterday, and again have chosen not to remain absent today. 2. Perused the plaint and the application filed for amendment of the same. 3. By the impugned Order dated 11-1-2010 amendment application filed by the petitioners has been rejected on the ground that the amendment sought by the plaintiffs was for the purpose of withdrawing an admission. 4. According to the petitioners, the application filed was only to clear an ambiguity which was found in para 15 of the plaint wherein Luiza Rodrigues alias Luiza Maria Conceicao Fernandes Rodrigues was stated to be 5 a joint co-owner of the suit property. 5. The petitioners/plaintiffs had clearly stated that the property initially was owned by Fr. Alexandre Carlos Rodrigues. Thereafter, in the subsequent paragraphs the plaintiffs had stated as to how the property devolved on the petitioners/plaintiffs and the defendant nos.1, 2, 3 and 15. Luiza Rodrigues was certainly not one of them. Moreover, the plaintiffs in para 16 had clearly stated that the said Luiza Rodrigues was not the owner of the said property and that her name was inserted in the occupants column of the records of rights due to inadvertence and mistake during the survey operations. 6. Considering the pleadings of the plaint as a whole, and, particularly of para 16, it could not be said that the plaintiffs application for amendment was for withdrawing an admission. It was clarificatory in nature i.e. to remove an ambiguity which arose in para 15 of the plaint. It was certainly not a case where the plaintiffs sought to withdraw an admission. Consequently, such an amendment ought to be allowed by the learned trial Court. 7. As a result of the above discussion, the Writ Petition succeeds, 6 The impugned Order is set aside and the application filed by the plaintiffs is allowed. N. A. BRITTO, J. RD