-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA PANAJI WRIT PETITION NO. 480 OF 2007 1. Mr. Rosarinho M. Fernandes, son of Mr. Estevao Fernandes, aged 60 years, seaman, resident of House no. 631, Gorcamorod, Velim, Salcete, Goa; and 2. Mrs. Fatima Fernandes, wife of Mr. Rosarinho Fernandes, aged 56 years, housewife, residing of House no. 631, Gorcamorod, Velim, Salcete,Goa. ...... Petitioner V e r s u s 1. Mr. Santosh Juvekar alias Santosh Zuvatkar, son of Mr. Kanoba Juvekar, major in age, fisherman, resident of House no. 1320, Rangalli, Velim, Salcete, Goa, and his wife 2. Mrs. Savitri Juvekar, major in age, housewife, resident of House no. 1320, Rangalli, Velim, Salcete, Goa 3. Mr. Dashrath Juvekar alias Dashrath Zuvatkar, son of Mr. Kanoba Juvekar, major in age, fisherman, and his wife 4. Mrs. Sunaina Juvekar, major in age, houseqwife, both residents of House no. 1320, Rangalli, Velim, Salcete, Goa. 5. Mr. Bagwan Kerkar, son of Mr. Arjun Kerkar, major in age, fisherman, and his wife 6. Mrs. Bhavna Kerkar, -2- major in age, housewife, both residents of House no. 1323, Rangalli, Velim, Salcet, Goa. 7. Mr. Pradip Kerkar, son of Mr. Arjun Kerkar, major in age, fisherman, and his wife 8. Mrs. Seema Kerkar, major in age, housewife both residents of of House No. 1323/2, Rangalli, Velim, Salcete, Goa. 9. Mr. Laximan Kerkar, son of Mr. Arjun Kerkar, major in age, fisherman, and his wife 10. Mrs. Urmila Kerkar, major in age, housewife, both residents of House no. 1323/3, Rangalli, Velim, Salcete, Goa. 11. Mr. Vilas Kerkar, son of Mr. Arjun Kerkar, major in age, fisherman, and his wife 12. Mrs. Archana Kerkar, major in age, housewife, both residents of House No. 1323/4, Rangalli, Velim, Salcete, Goa. ...... Respondents Mr. R. F. Reis, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. S. Usgaonkar, Advocate for the Respondents. CORAM : R. M. S. KHANDEPARKAR,J DATE : 19 th March, 2008. ORAL JUDGMENT Heard. -3- 2. Rule. By consent Rule made returnable forthwith. 3. The petitioner challenges Order dated 14.08.2007 passed by the Civil Judge Senior Division, Margao, in Special Civil Suit No. 34/06, whereby the application for amendment of the pleadings in the plaint has been rejected. The rejection is on the ground that the facts which are now sought to be brought on record by way of proposed amendment were known to the petitioner prior to the filing of the application for temporary injunction; however, the amendment is sought for only after filing the application for temporary injunction. 4. It is not in dispute that the proposed amendment relates to the events which have occurred subsequent to the filing of the plaint. It is a matter of record that even the issues in the suit are yet to be framed. It is also not in dispute that the proposed amendment relates to the activities which have taken place in the property which is the subject matter of the suit. Undisputedly, the proposed amendment relates to the subject matter of the dispute in the suit. Obviously, therefore, the proposed amendment is relevant for the appropriate decision on the dispute between the parties relating to the property in question. 5. It is settled law that when the events occur subsequent to the -4- filing of the suit and they relate to the subject matter in dispute in the suit,and, therefore, are found to be relevant for the appropriate decision in the suit,then merely because there is some delay in filing the application for amendment, it cannot be rejected or disallowed. Question of prejudice to the opposite parties can not also arise in such cases as the facts which are sought to be brought on record relates to the events which take place after filing of the suit. 6. It cannot be disputed as rightly observed by the Trial Court that in order to enable the plaintiff to get interim relief, the plaintiff has to make out a case based on the facts pleaded in the plaint. If the application for temporary injunction is filed in relation to the facts which are not at all disclosed in the pleadings of the plaint, certainly question of entertaining such an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 of C.P.C. would not arise. That, however, would not debar the plaintiff from seeking amendment to the plaint along with the application for temporary injunction and in cases where such events occur subsequent to filing of the application and the same can be sought to be brought on record even subsequent to the filing of the application for temporary injunction but definitely prior to the disposal of such application. What is relevant is that the material facts must be placed before the Court before disposal of the application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 C.P.C. Being so, merely because the application for amendment in relation to the subsequent events has been filed subsequent to the filing of the application for temporary injunction that itself cannot be said to be a ground to reject such an -5- application. The Trial Court has rejected the application merely on the said ground. The impugned order, therefore, cannot be sustained. 7. For the reasons stated above, therefore, the petition succeeds. That the impugned order is hereby set aside. The proposed amendment to the plaint under application dated 27.04.2007 filed in the Trial Court is hereby allowed. The amendment to be carried out within 14 days from the date of the receipt of this Court Order by the Trial Court. The plaintiff shall serve notice upon the defendant the amended copy of the plaint and within 15 days of receipt of said amended copy of the plaint, the defendant shall file written statement in relation to the amended plaint. 8. Rule made absolute in above terms with no orders as to costs. R. M. S. KHANDEPARKAR,J arp/*