1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO.723 OF 2011 Rajaram N.S. Bandekar & Company Private Ltd., A Company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956, Having its registered office at Swarna Building, Post Box No.31, Vasco-da-Gama, Goa. Represented herein by its Group General Manager and Constituted Attorney, Mr. Felix Fernandes, Major of age, Son of Zeferino Fernandes, Having office at Vasco-Goa. …. Petitioner V/s 1. The Goa State, represented by Directorate of Settlement & Land Records, Panjim Goa. 2. The Captain of Ports, Panjim Goa. 3. The Chief Secretary, Secretariat House, Porvorim-Goa. 4. The Mamlatdar of Quepem, Quepem, Goa. …. Respondents Shri A.F. Diniz with Shri A.D. Bhobe, Advocates for the Petitioner. Shri S. Vahidullah, Government Advocate for the Respondents. 2 CORAM : F. M. REIS, J. DATE : 16th NOVEMBER, 2011 JUDGMENT : Heard Shri A.F. Diniz, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri S. Vahidullah, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel. Shri S. Vahidullah, learned Government Advocate waives service on behalf of the respondents. 3. The above petition challenges the order passed by the learned District Judge, South Goa at Margao in Civil Suit No.18/11 whereby an application filed by the respondent for amendment of the plaint came to be allowed. 4. Whilst passing the impugned order the learned Judge has come to the conclusion that the proposed amendment does not change the nature of the suit and further held that the relief sought to be incorporated in the body of the plaint is not barred by law of 3 limitation. 5. Shri A.F. Diniz, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has assailed the impugned judgment and pointed out that the learned Judge has erroneously exercised its jurisdiction in granting the amendment as according to him the relief sought to be incorporated in the plaint is barred by law of limitation. The learned Counsel further pointed out that the aspect of limitation cannot be decided by the Court without the additional written statement to the amended plaint is filed by the petitioner. Learned Counsel further pointed out that as the amendment would change the nature of the suit the question of granting any leave would not arise at all. 6. On the other hand, Shri S. Vahidullah, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents has supported the impugned order and pointed out that the relief which is sought to be incorporated is for declaration of title which on the basis of records cannot be said to be barred by law of limitation. Learned Counsel further pointed out that in the body of the plaint there were enough averments challenging the order passed by the Tribunal by disclosing the orders passed by the Authorities under the Land 4 Revenue Code under Section 14 of the Land Revenue Code. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the relief sought to be incorporated is an incidential relief and, as such, granting such relief would not change the nature of the suit. 7. Having heard the learned Counsel and on perusal of the record, I find that the learned Judge was justified to grant the application for amendment and, as such, no interference is called for as far as the leave is granted for the amendment. But however, with regard to the contention of the petitioner that the relief sought to be incorporated is barred by limitation, this aspect would have to be considered after the additional written statement is filed by the petitioner. Leaving the issue of limitation open to be decided on merits, I find that no interference is called for in the impugned judgment. 8. Subject to the above, the petition stands rejected. Rule stands disposed of accordingly. F.M. REIS, J NH/-