1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA Writ Petition No.150 of 2011 1.Mr. Suryakant Shambhu Malvankar, son of late Shambu Malvankar, 66 years of age, married, service. 2. Mrs. Laxmi Suryakant Malvankar wife of Mr. Suryakant Malvankar, 60 years of age, married, housewife, both resident of H.No.51/C, Freitas Waddo, Verla, Canca, Bardez-Goa. … Petitioners V e r s u s 1. Stella Lawreence Freitas, Widow of Lourenco Anseln Freitas alias Lawrence Anselm Feitas hailing from Freitas Vaddo, Verla, Bardez-Goa, presently at 2007, St. Vincent Street, Poona-4411 001. Represented herein by her Attorney her daughter Maria Lawrence Freitas alias Maria Hasmukh Kothari, wife of Hasmukh Kothari, r/o Ashiyana Park, Plot no.21, Survey no.255, Baner, Pune. …. Respondents Mr. S.D. Padiyar, advocate for the petitioners. Mr. P.S. Lotlikar, advocate for the respondents. 2 Coram: A. P. Lavande, J. Date: 21st April, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT: Heard Mr. Padiyar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Lotlikar, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Rule. By consent of the learned counsel heard forthwith. 3. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India although the petitioners have challenged two orders dated 17/12/2010 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division “E” Court Mapusa in Regular Civil Suit no.812009/E, one is disallowing the application for amendment filed by the petitioner/defendant and the second by which cross examination of Mrs.Maria Kothari has been closed. 3 4. Mr. Padiyar, learned counsel for the petitioner states that he is restricting his challenge to the order dated 17/12/2010 by which cross examination of Maria Kottari has been closed. 5. It appears that on 17/12/2010, the suit was posted for evidence i.e examination of the witness on behalf of the respondents/plaintiffs. On the said date the plaintiffs examined Smt. Maria Kothari who had come from Pune on behalf of the defendants. Neither the defendants nor their advocate was present. However, the son of the defendants Mr. Prashant Malwankar was present and he was given an opportunity to cross examine the witness which he did not avail of. The trial Court held that the witness had come from Pune and as such, the plaintiffs had to incur substantial expenditure for the same and therefore there was no ground for granting time to the 4 defendants. Subsequently, by separate order the trial Court closed the evidence of Smt. Kothari. 6. Mr. Lotlikar, learned counsel for the respondents states that he would have no objection if the plaintiffs/defendants are permitted to cross examine the said witness subject to the payment of costs as the witness had come from Pune and in the event the order is set aside the witness will have to again come back from Pune. 7. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 7/12/2010 passed by the trial Court by which the cross examination of the witness Smt. Maria Kothari has been closed is set aside and the defendants are given an opportunity to cross examine the said witness subject to payment of costs of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand only) to the plaintiffs. The costs shall be deposited in the trial Court within a period of two weeks. Liberty to the 5 plaintiffs to withdraw the same after the same are deposited. 8. At this stage, Mr. Lotlikar , learned counsel for the respondents states that in the suit the name of defendant no.2, wife of defendant no.1 is shown as Mrs. Suryakant Malwankar and the plaintiffs may be permitted to furnish the name of wife of defendant no.2 as well as the house number and to carry out correction in the cause title. 9. Mr. Padiyar, learned counsel for the petitioners has no objection. 10. Since, the amendment is of formal nature, the respondents/plaintiffs are permitted to carry out necessary amendment in the cause title of the plaint by giving the name of defendant no.2 as well as the house number. 6 Amendment to be carried out within a period of four weeks. 11. The petition stands disposed of. A. P. Lavande, J. Ap/-