-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 85 OF 2008 1. Mr. Nicolau Lorenco Severino Pereira, son of late Luis Jose Pereira, 2. Mrs. Glafina Joana Pereira, 3. Miss Jane Pereira 4. Miss Anita Pereira 5. Miss Yvone Pereira 6. Olwyn Pereira 7. Oswald Pereira 8. Mrs. Asley Pereira all majors residing at N.N.98/1 Sinquerim, Candolim Bardez, Goa. ...... Petitioner V e r s u s 1. Mrs. Maria Sonia Elvira Anunciacao Viegas Lemos, Resident of Candolim Sinquerim, Candolim Sinquerim,Goa. 2. Cristalina Pereira e Sequeira Resident of 180/A Block 5 Foman Nagar, Danpada Khar, Bombay, 400 052. ...... Respondents Mr. M. B. Da Costa, Senior Advocate with Mr. J. A. Lobo, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. Sudin Usgaonkar, Advocate for the Respondent no.1. CORAM: A. P. DESHPANDE, J. DATE: 21 st November, 2008. ORAL JUDGMENT -2- 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Taken up for final disposal by consent of parties. 3. An Order passed by the Trial Court rejecting an amendment application dated 22.01.2008 is challenged by filing this Writ Petition. The suit is filed by the respondent-plaintiff wherein the present petitioners are the defendants. After commencement of the evidence of the plaintiff, an application for amendment came to be moved by the petitioners. It is undisputed that the amendment is clarificatory in nature and only goes to explain the circumstances under which the defendants had applied for registration as Mundkar. The impugned Order also records that the proposed amendment is in the nature of placing on record evidence. As the proposed amendment was understood by the Trial Court as a material forming part of the evidence, the application was rejected. 4. Shri Usgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent, in all fairness does not dispute that the proposed amendment is clarificatory in nature and does not in any way prejudice the plaintiff. The learned Counsel for the Respondent makes a statement that the plaintiff/Respondent has no objection if the defendants lead evidence touching the averments made in the amendment application. If the said statement is accepted, in fact, the proposed amendment shall be deemed to have been allowed, as the plaintiff is not going to suffer any prejudice on account of allowing of the amendment application. Hence the same deserves to be allowed. The learned Counsel for the Respondent/plaintiff expresses an apprehension that in the event if the amendment application is -3- allowed at this stage, the same may result in delaying the progress of the suit and thereby cause prejudice to the plaintiff. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that without any loss of time whatsoever, if the amendment is allowed, the same will be carried out within a day and no adjournment would be sought by the petitioners for carrying out the amendment. The learned Senior Counsel Shri D' Costa, appearing for the petitioners, submit that the petitioners will not take any step which would result in delay of the trial of the suit including making of a prayer for recall of witnesses already examined by the plaintiff. The said statement is accepted. 5. In the result, I pass the following Order : ORDER The amendment application is allowed. The impugned Order dated 22.01.2008, is quashed and set aside. The petitioners/defendants shall carry out the amendment on or before the next date fixed in the Trial Court for hearing of the suit and, for which purpose, no adjournment shall be sought. Rule is made absolute in above terms with no orders as to costs. A. P. DESHPANDE, J. arp/*