- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA. WRIT PETITION NO. 220 OF 2011. 1 Shri Sameer L. Nagvekar, Married, residents of H. No. 306/1, Livramento Waddo, Sangolda, Bardez – Goa. 2 Mr. Nilesh Laxman Nagvekar, married, residents of H. No.306/1, Livramento Waddo, Sangolda, Bardez – Goa. 3 Mr. Nitil alias Amit Laxman Nagvekar, Residents of H. No.306/1, Livramento Waddo, Sangolda, Bardez – Goa. 4 Smt. Sheetal D. Temkar, 5 Shri Dinesh G. Temkar, Both Residents of Simolda, Revora, Bardez - Goa. …....... Petitioners. Versus 1 Smt. Chandravati D. Mandrekar, w/o Late - 2 - Dattaram Mandrkear, R/o. H. No. 224/2, Bella Vista Waddo, Sangolda, Bardez -Goa. 2 Shri Uday D. Mandrekar, Major of age, service, R/o. H. No.224/2, Bella Vista Waddo, Sangolda, Bardez Goa. 3 Mrs. Ujwala Uday Mandrekar, Major, Housewife, R/o/ H. No. 224/2, Bella Vista Waddo, Sangolda, Bardez - Goa. 4 Mr. Raju D. Mandrekar, Major of age, service, R/ o. H. No. 224/3, Bella Vista Waddo, Sangolda, Bardez - Goa. 5 Mrs. Radia Raju Mandrekar, Major, Housewife, R/o. H. No. 224/3, Bella Vista Waddo, Sangolda, Bardez - Goa. 6 Mr. Ashok Mandrekar, Major of age, service, R/ o. H. No. 222, Bella Vista Waddo, Sangolda, Bardez - Goa. - 3 - 7 Mrs. Anita Ashok Mandrekar, Major, Housewife, R/o. H. No. 222, Bella Vista Waddo, Sangolda, Bardez - Goa. 8 Smt. Laxmi Laxman Nagvekar, W/o Late Laxman Nagvekar, Residents of H. No.306/1, Livaremento Waddo, Sangolda, Bardez - Goa. …....... Respondents. Mr. G. Teles, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Sudin Usgaonkar, Advocate for the respondent nos. 2 and 3. Mr. Shane Dias Sapeco, Advocate for respondent nos. 1, 4 to 8 is not present. CORAM :- A. P. LAVANDE, J. DATE : 7 th June, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. G. Teles, learned Advocate for the petitioners, Mr. Sudin Usgaonkar, learned Advocate for the respondent nos. 2 and 3 and Mr. Shane Dias Sapeco, learned Advocate for respondent nos. 1, 4 to 8 is not present. 2. Rule. By consent heard forthwith. - 4 - 3. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners challenge the order dated 8.2.2011 passed by Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mapusa in Regular Civil Suit No. 239/2003/A by which application for amendment dated 18.12.2010 filed by the respondent nos. 2 and 3 has been allowed. 4. Mr. Teles, learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the amendment sought and the documents sought to be produced which have been allowed by the trial Court are not necessary for deciding real matter in the controversy between the parties since the suit is for declaration that inventory proceedings are null and void. According to Mr. Usgaonkar, learned Counsel for respondent nos. 2 and 3, the amendment sought and the documents sought to be produced by defendant nos. 2 and 3 are relevant for deciding real matter in the controversy and as such no interference is warranted with the impugned order. 4. Having heard learned Counsel for the appellant and the respondent nos. 2 and 3, I am of the considered opinion that the petition is liable to be allowed on the short ground that though the trial Court in the impugned order states that amendment sought is - 5 - necessary for deciding the real controversy between the parties, no reason has been given to arrive at such a finding in impugned order passed in the suit filed for declaration that inventory proceedings are null and void. The trial Court ought to have given finding as to how amendment sought and the documents sought to be produced are relevant for deciding the real matters in the controversy between the parties. Such an exercise admittedly has not been undertaken by the trial Court. On this ground impugned order is liable to be set aside and it is hereby set aside. Trial Court to decide the application dated 18.12.2010 afresh after giving opportunity of being heard to the parties. Needless to mention that all the contentions of the parties are kept open. 5. Rule is made partly absolute in aforesaid terms with no order as to costs. A. P. LAVANDE, J. vn*