IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 44 OF 2008 KUM. INEZ LUDOVINA DA COSTA ... Petitioner Versus SHRI. JANARDHAN RAGHUVIR SINAI KUDCHADKAR AND 24 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. Agnelo F. Diniz,Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.G.Ramani, Advocate for the respondent No.2 To 13, 24 & 25. Coram:- C. L. PANGARKAR, J. Date:- 14th January, 2009 P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and respondent Nos.2 to 13, 24 and 25. 2. This writ petition has been filed against the order passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division,Quepem whereby he had allowed the amendment application. 3. The plaintiffs had instituted the suit for declaration that Property Survey No.243/3/Part, belongs to the plaintiffs and the defendants have claimed that property. The defendants had contended in their written statement that the portion of land known as "Ponsol" and their property, are different altogether. 4. After the evidence of the parties was recorded and even evidence of the one of the witness of the defendant was recorded, an application for amendment, was filed by the defendant, wherein it was contended that there is a sale deed bearing registration No.13666 in respect of entire property, which describes four boundaries of the entire properties, the part of which has been purchased by the plaintiffs. The defendants, therefore, sought to explain as to what were the boundaries of the entire Ponsol property, which was conveyed to the predecessor of the plaintiffs under sale deed under registration No.13666. This amendment was allowed by the learned Judge, which is being assailed. 5. It is mainly assailed on the ground that the application has been filed belatedly. There is no doubt that the application has been filed at belated stage. The defendants had since beginning contended that the Ponsol property, is different from the property of the defendants. The defendants are now explaining what are the boundaries given in the sale deed under registration No.13666. This is, certainly, not going to cause prejudice to the plaintiffs because in any case, if such documents are produced on record and evidence tendered to that effect, the plaintiffs, certainly, has right to rebut it. The rebuttal includes a right to file certain documents, which may disclose the contention of the plaintiffs. 6. With these observations, I do not find any substance in the petition. The petition is dismissed in limine. The Trial Court shall take into consideration observations made in this order. C. L. PANGARKAR, J. SMA