IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 740 OF 2011 SHRI IMTIYAZ KAZI ALIAS KAZI IMTIAZUDDIN AND ORS., ... Petitioners Versus SMT. SHARFUNISSA KAZI., ... Respondent Mr. A. D. Bhobe, Advocate for the Petitioner. Coram:- F. M. REIS, J. Date:- 23rd November, 2011 ORAL ORDER Heard Shri A. D. Bhobe, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners. 2. The above Petition challenges the Order passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, North Goa, at Panaji, in Regular Civil Appeal no. 164/2009, whereby an application filed by the Respondent for amendment of the plaint came to be allowed. By the impugned Order dated 11.10.2011, the learned Judge has permitted the application for amendment of the plaint essentially on the ground that some of the errors sought to be rectified crapped up on account of wrong translation of the document in Portuguese Language and the remaining are with regards to typographical errors. 3. Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners has assailed the impugned Order and pointed out that the learned Judge has permitted the application for amendment which changes the nature of the suit as well as the cause of action. Learned Counsel further pointed out that it was not open for the learned Judge to allow the application for amendment when the suit had gone for trial on the basis of the unamended plaint and the Petitioners had duly made their contentions during the course of trial. Learned Counsel further pointed out that great prejudice shall occasion to the Petitioners in case the impugned Order is not quashed and set aside. Learned Counsel further raised the grievance to the effect that the learned Judge whilst passing the impugned Order did not consider the fact that the Respondent was also amending prayer clause 26(c) of the plaint whereby the Respondent was seeking for restoration of possession. Shri Bhobe further pointed out that the Petitioners had also disputed the correctness of the contention that the Advocate who had prepared the original pleadings was not aware of the Portuguese language. 4. Having heard the learned Counsel and on perusal of the record, I find that the learned Judge has not committed any jurisdictional error in allowing the application for amendment. As far as the amendment to correct the errors on account of the fact that there was a wrong translation of the document, this by itself cannot change the nature of the suit property. Apart from that, Shri Bhobe, the learned Counsel, does not dispute the fact that the nature of the property has not been changed. This further establishes that the suit property has not been displaced by the proposed amendment. 5. As far as the contention of Shri Bhobe, to the effect that the learned Judge has not considered the amendment to the prayer clause though there are no reasons to that effect in the impugned Order, nevertheless, I find that this by itself does not vitiate the impugned Order. On perusal of the prayer clause 26(c), there was already a prayer for mandatory injunction as well as restoration of the property. The amendment to incorporate the restoration of possession is incidental to the prayers which were already sought by the Respondent in the Suit. 6. Hence, I find that no interference is called for in the impugned Order. No prejudice shall be caused to the Petitioners as the Petitioners are always entitled to file an additional written statement and raise all their contentions to oppose the amended pleadings. Hence the above petition stands dismissed. F. M. REIS, J. arp/*