... 1 ... IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA. MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.346 OF 2009 1. Shri Armando Pereira, son of Santano Pereira, major, married, retired, 2. Smt. Sharayu Pereira, wife of Armando Pereira, housewife, Both represented by their attorney, Shri Gaurish Pereira,] major of age, residents of Flat No.5, 2nd floor, Pereira building, St. Inez, Panaji, Goa. … Applicants v e r s u s 1. Shri Jude D'souza, son of John D'souza, bachelor, aged 34 years, (deleted by order dated 13.01.2009) 2. Shri Agnel D'souza, son of John D'souza, bachelor, aged 30 years, Both r/o of Flat No.5, 2nd floor, Pereira building, St. Inez, Panaji, Goa. 3. Shri Valeriano D'souza, son of John D'souza, aged 38 years, mechanic 4. Shri Cajetan D'souza, son of John D'souza, aged 42 years, ... 2 ... 5. Shri Domnic D'souza, son of John D'souza, aged 45 years, (deleted by order dated 13.01.2009) All respondent no.3 to 5 are residing at 14/15, Supariwada Mansion, St. Xavier Street, Parel, Bombay-2 All respondent no.2 to 5 are represented by Shri Jude D'souza, as their Power attorney 6. Shri Joao Sebastiao Pereira, son of Santano Pereira, major, married, business, 7. Smt. Joao Pereira, w/o Joao Sebastiao Pereira, housewife, Both r/o Boca-de-vaca, Panaji, Goa. 8. Shri Francis Moreira, major, business, c/o Cristo Upholstry, shop no.4, Pereira building, St. Inez, Panaji, Goa. 9. Shri S. M. Dessai, major, business, c/o Deco Enterprises, shop no.3, Pereira building, St. Inez, Panaji, Goa. 10. Dena Bank (deleted) Mahatma Gandhi road, Panaji, Goa. 11. Mr. Hanumant Chari, major, business, Auto Mechanic Pereira building, ... 3 ... St. Inez, Panaji, Goa. 12. Shri Subhash Chari, major, auto mechanic, Pereira building, St. Inez, Panaji, Goa. 13. Dr. Shekhar Shirwaikar, (deleted), major, Physician, Flat no.2, Ground floor, Pereira building, St. Inez, Panaji, Goa. The respondent nos. 8 to 13, are deleted by order 13.01.2009) … respondents Mr. S. G. Dessai, Senior Advocate with Mr. M.G. Khandeparkar, Advocate for the for the applicants. Mr. G. Shirodkar, Advocate for the respondent no.2 and 4. Mr. G. Sharma, Advocate for the respondent no.6 and 7. CORAM: Shri A. H. JOSHI DATE: 29th JULY, 2009. JUDGMENT: Heard learned Senior Advocate Shri Dessai, Advocate Shri G. Shirodkar, for the respondent no.2 and 4 and Advocate Shri G. Sharma, for the respondent no.6 and 7. ... 4 ... 2. Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard with consent. Fresh service on respondent no.1 not necessary. 3. Present application is titled as application for modification/clarification of order dated 18.03.2009 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.8 of 2009 with Writ petition No.691 of 2008. 4. By this application, the petitioners seek deletion of the sentence contained in the order clause (ii) passed by this Court referred above, which reads as follows: “However, the defendant no.3 and 4 are at liberty to file a separate application for amendment if they so choose and may try to explain under what circumstances such admissions were given.” 5. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. S. Dessai urged that the portion – sentence contained in the order dated 18.03.2009 which is sought to be ... 5 ... deleted, was in fact not sought for by the respondents and is suo motto inducted by this Court. 6. Learned Advocate Shri Dessai has urged that it would be open to the High Court being the Court of record to correct its records and the power of review under Section 114 of the Civil Procedure Code and Order 47 Rule 1, can be invoked to wherever such review is required or there exist sufficient reason thereto. He has placed reliance on following judgments, namely:- (a) M.M. Thomas v. State of Kerala reported in (2000) 1 Supreme Court Cases 666. (b) Board of Control for Cricket in India and anr. v. Netaji Cricket Club and ors. reported in (2005) 4 Supreme Court Cases 741. 7. The applicants' submission are countered by the learned Advocate Mr. Sharma for the respondent no.6 and 7 urging that inclusion of said leave was well supported by submissions, and ... 6 ... no grounds for review or modification are made out. 8. Learned Advocate Mr. Sharma has placed reliance on reported judgments namely:- (a) Smt. Meera Bhanja v. Smt. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury reported in AIR 1995 Supreme Court 455 (b) Shiv Ganesh and ors. v. State of U.P. and ors. 9. Though Learned Senior Advocate for the applicant had advanced his submission at length, at the end he has restricted the prayers submitting that the purpose of the application shall be served if this Court clarifies that any such application (for amendment or clarification) when filed by the defendants, it be decided by the Trial Court on its own merits and without considering that such application has to be allowed as a direction of this Court. 10. Learned Advocate Mr. Sharma has opposed this limited prayer for clarification urging that granting such clarification sought by the ... 7 ... applicant would amount to watering down the leave which has been granted by this Court after complete consideration of rival submissions. 11. Considering that now the applicant has restricted the prayer, it would be unnecessary to discuss the matter in detail any further. 12. Now as the prayer is restricted, a clarifying direction in order clause (ii) as sub paragraph is added, the ends of justice. Such clarification would remove apprehension pondering in the minds of the petitioners. Nevertheless, the respondents who are keen on explaining the circumstances in which certain admissions are found in their written statement on record, would be entitled to offer the explanation. 13. Even otherwise any such application was and is liable to be decided in accordance with law and on its own merits. 14. This Court therefore, directs that a sub clause as follows: ... 8 ... “The application for amendment if filed based leave expressed herein before such application be decided by the Trial Court on its own merits and without considering that this Court has allowed any such application” be added below order clause (ii) of paragraph 25 of the judgment and order of this Court dated 18.03.2009, passed in the common judgment in Writ petition No.8 of 2009 and writ petition no.691 of 2008. 15. Rule is made partly absolute with direction contained in paragraph 14. In the circumstances, parties shall bear own costs. A. H. JOSHI lh/.