45 WP-783-2024.doc Meena IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 783 OF 2024 WITH MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1041 OF 2025 ( F) IN WRIT PETITION NO. 783 OF 2024 Shri Ivon Francisco Xavier Dias alias Ivan Dias, S/o late Shri Bossuet Reduzindo Silvestre Dias, 42 Years, Married, Service, Indian National, R/o H. No.86, Church Ward, Carmona, Salcete Goa. hrough Power of Attorney Sujatha Monis, D/o Late Paul Monis Aged 40 years, married, Indian National, Service, R/o H.No 93/3, Maddicotto, Cuncolim, Salcette, Goa. ....Petitioner Versus 1. Shri Manuel Rodrigues, (since deceased) s/o late Shri Henriquinho Rodrigues, Major of age, Indian National, R/o H. No.68, Copelwaddo, Sernabatim, Colva, Salcete, Goa. 2. Vina Saira Rodrigues, Widow, r/o H. No.62, Gonto Naik, Orlim, Salcete, Goa. 3. Nilda J. Serrao 4. Jerry Serraо Both r/o Copelwaddo, Sernabatim, Colva, major in age 5. Leticia Dhar 6. Chandra Sekhar Dhar, 1 45 WP-783-2024.doc Both r/o 77/1, Abinash Banerjee Lane, Maor in age Howrah, West Bengal, Pin 711104. 7. Oscar S. Silveira 8. Emilia C. Silveira, Both r/o H. No.214, Borda, Margao Goa, major in age 9. Shri Meljko H. Rodrigues, s/o Manuel Rodrigues, major in age, resident at H. No.1455, Olvaddo, Carmona, Salcete Goa 10. Smt. Sabina A. Rodrigues, w/o Shri Meljko H. Rodrigues, major in age, r/o H. No.1455, Olvaddo, Carmona, Salcete Goa 11. Shri Mobimbo N. Rodrigues, S/o Shri Manuel Rodrigues, major is age, R/o Flat 103, Narmada Paradise, Building no. 12, Mira Road (E), hane Maharashtra, 401107; 12. Shri Avita D'Souza e Rodrigues W/o Shri Mobimbo N. Rodrigues, mayor in age, R/o Flat No.103, Narmada Paradise, Building no. 12, Mira Road (E), hane, Maharashtra, 401107; 13. Smt. Veena Rodrigues. D/o Shri Manuel Rodrigues, major in age R/oXirwaddo, Carmona, Salcete, Goa 2 45 WP-783-2024.doc 14. Shri Ferrol P. Rodrigues, H/o Veena, Rodrigues, major in age R/o Xirwaddo, Carmona, Salcete Goa. 15. Smt. Corina Casmiro Terezinha de Menino Jesus Rodrigues e Braganza, major in age D/o Late Shri Henriquinho Rodrigues W/o Shri Prazeres Jose Braganza R/o 2nd loor, homas Palace Building, Ramesh Nagar, Jogeshwari Mumbai 400102; 16. Shri Prazeres Jose Braganzo H/o Smt. Corina Casmiro Terezinha de Menino Jesus Rodrigues e Braganza, major in age R/o 2nd Floor, homas Palace Building, Ramesh Nagar, Jogeshwari, Mumbai 400102. 17. Smt. Davidinha Rodrigues e Dias, daughter of late Shri Henriquinho Rodrigues widow Of late Shri Bossuet Reduzindo Silvestre Dias, aged 69 years, Married, Indian National, Major in age, Service, R/o H. No.86, Church Ward, Carmona, Salcete Goa. 18. Shri Norman Blaise Dias, S/o late Shri Bossuet Reduzindo Silvestre Dias, major in age, Aged 45 years, Married, Service, Indian National, R/o H. No.86, Church Ward, Carmona, Salcete Goa. ...Respondents Mr. Vishnuprasad Lawande, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. Anant Nagi, Advocate for the Respondent Nos.2 to 14. 3 45 WP-783-2024.doc CORAM:- VALMIKI MENEZES, J. DATED :- 24th July, 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith with the consent of the parties. With the consent of the parties, the Petition is disposed of at the stage of admission itself. 3. his petition impugns the order rejecting an application for amendment of the written statement of the counter claim at Exhibit D-68 of the record of the Court of the CJSD Margao in Regular Civil Suit No. 21/2016/8. 4. he Petitioner herein was the plaintif in the suit in which a decree of declaration was sought that a inal allotment in inventory proceedings between the plaintifs and the defendants was a nullity since the plaintif had not been properly served in the auction proceedings conducted in the inventory proceedings. A written statement came to be iled by the Defendants/Respondents No.2 to 14, who are contesting parties here, denying this position and seeking rejection of the plaint on ground of limitation. A counter claim was also raised along with the written statement in which eviction of the plaintif from the premises allotted in the inventory proceedings to these defendants was sought. 5. A written statement to the counter claim came to be iled by the original Plaintif /Petitioner setting up various defences therein. However 4 45 WP-783-2024.doc while setting up these defences, the details of the acts, which the plaintif considers were acts of fraud played by the defendants in obtaining a partition in the inventory proceedings, were not pleaded in detail, though the basic pleading alleges act of fraud does exists in that written statement. 6. he plaint came to be rejected by an order dated 22/09/2019 holding that the plaint was barred by limitation. his order has attained inality where an appeal against this order was rejected by the District Court. 7. Subsequent thereto the Plaintifs have sought amendment to the written statement to the counter claim to incorporate details of the acts of fraud, which, according to them resulted in the inal Chart of Partition being passed in the inventory proceedings. hese were sought to be incorporated in the form of new paragraphs 23A to 23J. In addition, paragraphs 1A, 2A, 10A, 10B, 9A and 9B were also sought to be incorporated by way of amendment referring to the transactions during the course of Inventory Proceedings No.111/2003/II. 8. he Trial Court has rejected the application mainly on the premise that the amendment to the counter claim alleges acts of fraud against the Court and its staf and the conduct of the Plaintif by seeking such an amendment, making averments in the draft of the amendment would embarrass the Court. 9. After perusing the impugned order, the same would have to be rejected, mainly on the ground that the Trial Court has entered into the merits on the various facts stated in the draft amendments to various paragraphs of the written statement of the counter claim. he trial Court has clearly considered the amendments made in the draft amendment on their merits and rejected the application on that count. 5 45 WP-783-2024.doc 10. his is totally impermissible while deciding the amendment application since the only consideration would be whether the amendment would be barred by limitation or any other law or by the procedure provided under the Civil Procedure Code. In the present case issues have not been framed and the matter is on the stage of production and inspection of documents. In this view of the matter the defendant could not have even claimed that any prejudice is caused to them at the stage of inception of the suit. 11. In this view of the matter, the impugned order is quashed and set aside and the application for amendment at Exh.D-68 is allowed. he Plaintifs are permitted to amend the written statement to the counter claim to incorporate the paragraphs stated in the application within a period of two weeks from today. he Trial Court shall then post the matter for further stages of the suit and frame issues and proceed to record evidence of the defendants. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) of the petition. No costs. VALMIKI MENEZES, J. 6 Signed by: MEENA VISHAL BHOIR Designation: Private Secretary Date: 29/07/2025 11:37:24