IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 114 OF 2009 SMT. CHANDRAWATI HALARNKAR ... Petitioner Versus SHRI. VASUDEV G. KUBAL ... Respondent Shri J. J. Mulgaonkar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri P. S. Rao, Advocate for the Respondent. Coram:- N. A. BRITTO, J. Date:- 9th July, 2009 P.C.:- Heard. This is plaintiff's Writ Petition and is directed against Order dated 20-8-2005 by which the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Mapusa disallowed the application for amendment filed by the plaintiff. The issues were framed. The trial had not started. There is no dispute that the plaintiff had filed the suit, inter alia, for demolition of the construction carried out by the defendant, and by the proposed amendment all that the plaintiff sought was to challenge a license granted to the defendant to carry out the said construction. Learned Counsel on behalf of the defendant submits that the amendment was sought three years later. This issue can always be decided at the trial of the suit. In the circumstances of the case, there was no change at all in the nature of the suit filed by the plaintiff as observed by the learned trial Court. The relief sought was only a consequential relief which ought to have been granted to the plaintiff. The impugned Order therefore is erroneous and arbitrary and therefore is hereby set aside. Consequently, the Writ Petition succeeds and the application filed for amendment by the plaintiff is allowed with liberty to the defendant to raise the issue of limitation in so far as the said declaration is concerned. N. A. BRITTO, J. RD.