IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 147 OF 2010 MR. FERNANDO JOSE LOBO AND ANR., ... Petitioners Versus MR. JOSE FERNANDES AND ANR., ... Respondents Mr. V.P. Thali, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. Pronoy Kamat, Advocate for the Respondents. Coram:- N. A. BRITTO, J. Date:- 13th August, 2010 P.C.: Heard learned Counsel on behalf of the parties. 2. The Writ Petitioners are the plaintiffs in Regular Civil Suit No.168/2005/E and shall hereinafter be referred to as such. The plaintiffs had filed the suit for recovery of possession of property surveyed under Survey No.138/5. Written statement with counter claim was filed by the defendants. The plaintiffs had produced along with the plaint a plan prepared by Satikant Kamat. The plaintiff is under cross-examination. The plaintiff filed an application dated 18/12/2009 to produce another plan/inspection report prepared on 17/12/2009, prepared by architect S.A. Dhuri, contending that at the time of preparing affidavit in evidence of the plaintiff (PW1), it was noticed that the defendants had denied in para 3 of their written statement that new Survey No.138/5 of Village Calangute had cadastral Survey No.4481 and, as such, they had engaged services of artichet S.A. Dhuri, who had identified that the suit property surveyed under No.138/5 of Village Calangute was correspondingly surveyed under no.4481 and had prepared the inspection report. 3. The said application was objected to by the defendants stating that the plaintiffs could not be allowed to substitute one report by another. 4. Counsel on behalf of the plaintiffs submits that the first report of architect Sitakant Kamat was filed by the plaintiffs to comply with the provisions of Order 7, Rule 3 and the second report has been got prepared with a view to prove that the property under Survey No.138/5 is corresponding to cadastral Survey No.4481. 5. Considering the facts of the case and the cause shown, in my view, the learned trial Court ought to have granted leave to the plaintiffs to produce the said inspection report prepared by architect Shri Dhuri. There was no question of any prejudice having been caused to the defendants who are always entitled to cross-examine the said architect S.A. Dhuri, as and when he is cross-examined in support of the said inspection report and not only that they are still at liberty to cross-examine the plaintiffs in case they so desire on the said report. They too can engage another expert, if desired. 6. The averments in para 1 and 2 of application dated 18/12/2009 were more than sufficient to grant leave to produce the inspection report as the plaintiffs had not produced earlier the said report along with the filing of the plaint. 7. Consequently, this Writ Petition succeeds. The impugned order dated 20/01/2010 is hereby set aside and the application of the plaintiffs dated 18/12/2009 is allowed, with no order as to costs. Parties to appear before the learned trial Court on 13/09/2010 at 2.30.p.m. Interim relief, if any, shall stand vacated. N. A. BRITTO, J. NH