IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 272 OF 2009 DR. SMT. MEENACSHI MARTINS ... Petitioner Versus SHRI. VISHWANATH SHESHGIRISH SHENVI AND 3 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. J. P. Mulgaonkar,Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. M.S. Joshi, Advocate for the respondent No.1. Coram:- SMT. R. S. DALVI, J. Date:- 4th May, 2009 P.C. Rule. By consent heard forthwith. 2. This writ petition has challenged the order dated 21.3.2009 refusing to grant amendments sought by the plaintiffs in the plaint. 3. The amendment sought are two fold. The first amendment is with regard to the execution of a Gift Deed by and between the plaintiffs interse. The Gift Deed was executed in the year 2000. The application for amendment has been made after several years and after part evidence was recorded. Hence, it has been rejected. 4. The second amendment is with regard to certain facts to be mentioned in the plaint concerning the transaction of the property adjacent to the suit property. The plaintiff has stated that the suit agreement dated 17.1.92 is no longer subsisting between the parties. The suit agreement which is in respect of the property at Survey No.140/8 also shows adjacent property bearing Survey No.140/12. Clause 16 of the agreement shows that the purchaser (who is defendant in the suit) would settle with adjacent owner upon which he would develop both the suit properties as well as that adjacent property. The suit agreement, therefore, relates to rights between the parties to the agreement with regard to development of the suit property as well as the adjacent property. 5. The written statement of the defendants shows that the suit property is a narrow strip of property for which no development, subdivision is possible unless it is joined with the adjacent property which is property bearing Survey No.140/12. The written statement further shows that at the time of execution of the agreement dated 17.1.92 it was agreed between the parties to the suit agreement that the suit property being a narrow strip which could not be developed independently would have to be amalgamated with the adjacent property for development. The issue with regard to the adjacent property has also been framed. 6. It is the plaintiff's case that upon certain enquiries made by the plaintiff pending the suit one Bismarco Facho informed the plaintiff that the owner of the adjacent property had already entered into an agreement in the year 2006 with the defendant herein for sale of the property and pursuant to that purchase, the defendant had subdivided the property and created certain third party rights. The plaintiff was also informed that their agreement was duly terminated. The power of attorney which was executed along with the agreement was revoked and that the Vendors of that adjacent property had not executed the Conveyance despite the offer by the defendant herein of the balance consideration. 7. The plaintiffs contend that the amendments are by way of subsequent events. The first amendment shows the title of the suit property pursuant to the Gift Deed between the plaintiffs. That amendment is belated. No prejudice will be caused to the defendant if the amendment is allowed. On the contrary, the rights, if any, of some of the plaintiffs who may have gifted the property would come to an end. The rights, if any, of only some of the plaintiffs who would be gifted the property would remain so that the defendant would know who would be the real contesting plaintiffs and the decree, if any,passed would be in favour of or against those relevant plaintiffs. There is no reason to reject such an amendments though belated. 8. The second amendment also relates to what is transpired and what the plaintiffs rely upon showing the development of the adjacent plot of land pending the suit. Since the suit agreement itself mentions about the fact that development of it may not be possible as the suit plot of land is a narrow strip of land and it would have to be amalgamated with adjacent property of land, what is the position with regard to the adjacent property pending the suit would be relevant fact to determine the acts of the parties which would determine their rights in the suit. Hence, in order to bring the entire truth before the Court and for the ultimate justice to prevail all these facts must be allowed to be brought on record. 9. Consequently, it is seen that refusal to allow the amendments being against the interest of the parties is an improper and incorrect order. The order is set aside. The amendments are allowed. The plaintiffs shall carry out the amendments in the plaint within two weeks. The plaintiffs shall also serve amended copy of the plaint upon the defendant's Advocate within two weeks. The suit shall proceed. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Rule made absolute accordingly. SMT. R. S. DALVI, J. SMA