IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 65 OF 2008 MR. LEVIN DA COSTA ... Petitioner Versus MRS. TALANTA DIDA COUTIHNO MASCARENHAS AND 10 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. S. D. Padiyar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Jose Filipe Melo, Advocate for the respondents no.8 to 10. Mr. J. Godinho, Advocate for the respondents no.1 to 4. Coram:- S. C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. Date:- 19th September, 2008 P.C. Heard learned counsels appearing for the petitioner, original plaintiff, Mr. Godinho appearing for the respondents no.1 to 4 and Mr. Jose Filipe Melo appearing for the respondents no.8 to 10. Rest of the respondents are duly served. The petitioner is the original plaintiff. The original plaintiff filed Regular Civil Suit No.19/2006/D and the relief claimed in that suit is for permanent and mandatory injunction restraining the original defendants no.1 to 6, their agents, servants or any other person claiming through them from in any manner interfering with or alienating, mortgaging, parting or creating any sort of lien on the suit property. 2. After service on the defendants no.8 to 10, they filed written statement on 08.03.2006 whereas the defendants no.1 to 4 filed their written statement on 24.03.2006. It is stated in the amendment application that the defendants have relied upon a sale deed dated 13.3.2006 which has been executed after the filing of the suit. The sale deed records that the defendants no.1 to 4 have during the pendency of the suit transfered the suit property to the defendant no.11. 3. It is in such circumstances, that the reference to the sale deed had to be included and on the basis of that, appropriate declaration was claimed and some person was deleted and other substituted. 4. This application was contested. The Trial Court has passed an order rejecting the same on untenable reasons. In paragraph 4, the learned Judge says that because the defendants no.5 and 6 were not served, the application deserves to be dismissed. The learned Judge should have been aware that it is only the defendants no.1 to 4 who have filed the written statement and defendants no.8 to 10. The defendants no.1 to 4 claim to have sold the property to the defendant no.11 and that fact is not disputed. That fact is stated in the written statement of other defendants. Merely because the defendants no.5 and 6 were not served, does not mean that the amendment application cannot be entertained. Secondly, how the relief claimed of permanent injunction is altered is not clear to me at all. The learned Judge lost sight of the liberal principles and it is not clear why the application for amendment is rejected. The approach of the Court is not in consonance of law. There are no proper sound reasons assigned for rejecting the application. Resultantly, the petition succeeds. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. Amendment is permitted to be carried out. Amended copies to be furnished to the other parties within a period of one week from the date of this order. Additional written statement to be filed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of amended copy. No order as to costs. Petition allowed in the above terms. S. C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. lh/.