IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 522 OF 2009 KODAK INDIA LTD THROUGH ATTORNEY V. GAURKHEDE AND ANR., ... Petitioners Versus TRANSPORT CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD ... Respondent Shri Iftikhar Agha, Advocate for the Petitioners. Shri V. Menezes, Advocate for the Respondents. Coram:- N. A. BRITTO, J. Date:- 15th July, 2010 P.C.:- Heard. 2. The Petitioners herein are the plaintiffs in Special Civil Suit No.178/97/B. 4. In this Writ Petition, they have challenged three Orders of the earned trial Court. The first Order is dated 8-5-2009 by which application for amendment is granted allowing the Defendants to raise an issue of territorial jurisdiction of the trial Court based on a document, namely a docket which was produced by the plaintiffs. The second Order is dated 7-8-2009 by which the Defendants have been allowed to lead evidence in the light of the said plea of jurisdiction and the third is dated 7-8-2002 by which the Defendants have been allowed to produce the said documents. 5. Regarding the first Order, the learned trial Court has observed and in my view rightly, that the merits of the amendment could not be looked into at that stage. Amendment was granted subject to the payment of costs of Rs.500/-. In the second Order, it was observed that in view of the amendment allowed to the written statement the Defendant would be allowed to lead additional evidence. In the third Order, it was observed that the plaintiffs would be entitled to cross-examine the witnesses who would produce the said documents. In other words, the last two orders are consequential to the first first. 6. The suit was filed in the year 1997. The W.S. was filed in the year 1998. Issues were framed in the year 1999, and at the time of filing the amendment application and the other applications, the evidence of both the parties was concluded. 7. The plaintiffs had filed the suit for recovery of damages on account of defective supply of goods. According to the plaintiff, the cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of the trial Court, where the supply was made. According to the Defendants, the jurisdiction would depend upon the said docket where a specific mention was made as to which Court would have jurisdiction. It is true, that initially the Defendants pleaded that the plaintiffs had no cause of action but subsequently in their application dated 26-3-2009 seeking leave to amend the W.S. stated that due to inadvertence and mistake the defence was not clarified to mean that there was no cause of action within the jurisdiction of the Panaji Court. According to the Defendants, it is the said docket which was produced by the plaintiffs themselves, which would oust the jurisdiction of the trial Court. 8. Shri I. Agha, learned Counsel on behalf of the Petitioners has submitted that the Defendants have taken a new ground by proposed amendment, after the evidence in the case was closed, and, therefore ought not to have been allowed at the belated stage. Shri Aga has placed reliance on the case of Chander Kanta Bansal v. Rajinder Singh Anand((2008) 5 SCC 117). 9. I have perused the decision. The Orders challenged in this Writ Petition are all interlocutory Orders. An amendment to the W.S. is always looked at differently and more liberally in that altering a defence does not raise the same problem as adding, altering or substituting a new cause of action. The other two orders were consequential. As rightly observed by the trial Court in case the Defendants examined any witnesses in support of the plea now taken by them, the plaintiffs would be certainly entitled to cross-examine them. This is not a case where injustice can be said to have been caused to the plaintiffs by either of the three Orders to call for interference of this Court in extraordinary jurisdiction.(See Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai((2003) 6 SCC 675). 10. There is no merit in this petition. Consequently, the same is dismissed. 10. Parties to appear before the learned trial Court on 30-7-2010 at 10.00 a.m. N. A. BRITTO, J. RD.