IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 264 OF 2009 KAMALINI RAMAKANT PAINGUINKAR AND 6 ORS., ... Petitioners Versus SOCIEDADE DE FOMENTO INDUSTRIAL PRIVATE LIMITED AND 3 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. C. Mascarenhas, Advocate for the Petitioners. Coram:- A. P. LAVANDE, J. Date:- 13th July, 2009 P.C. Heard Mr. Mascarenhas for the Petitioners. 2. By this Petition, the Petitioners have challenged the order dated 5.11.2008 passed by Civil Judge Senior Division, Quepem, in Special Civil Suit No. 19/2006/A by which the application for amendment filed by the Respondent nos. 1 and 2 in the suit has been allowed. 3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that by the proposed amendment the Plaintiffs have taken inconsistent and destructive stands. He further submits that the proposed amendment is not necessary for the purpose of determining the real matters in controversy between the parties. According to Mr. Mascarenhas, the claims made by the Plaintiffs by the proposed amendment are in conflict with the original claim and therefore the proposed amendment ought not to have been allowed. 4. Having heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioners and having perused the impugned order and record, I am of the considered opinion that no interference is warranted with the exercise of the discretion of the Trial court in allowing the amendment application. In a catena of the decisions, Apex Court has held that while dealing with the amendment application, the Court should be liberal at the pre-trial stage. I, therefore, find that no jurisdiction error has been committed by the Trial Court to warrant interference by this Court. Hence, the Petition is rejected. A. P. LAVANDE, J. at*