(1) wp-673-2026.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO.673 OF 2026 SURESH KUMAR AND ANOTHER VERSUS AGNELO MANUEL FERNANDES … Mr. Shivan Desai with Ms. Maria Viegas and Ms. Riya Amonkar, Advocates for Petitioners. Ms. Maria Correia, Advocate for Respondent. … CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J. DATED : 23rd SEPTEMBER, 2026. FINAL ORDER:- 1. The petitioners takes exception to order dated 07.02.2025 passed below Exhibit D-13 by Civil Judge Junior Division, Pernem, Goa in Regular Civil Suit No.143/2021, thereby allowing amendment application filed by respondent/plaintiff. 2. The respondent instituted Regular Civil Suit No.143/2021 seeking recovery of money contending that petitioners entered into an agreement for Leave and License dated 05.04.2019 in respect of Guest House bearing No.229 for total compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- for period of 11 months starting from 01.10.2020 to 31.08.2021 and another agreement of Leave and License dated 05.04.2019 in respect of Plot B starting from 01.10.2020 to 31.08.2021 for compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-. The petitioners failed to pay compensation amount in terms of agreement. The respondent requested to clear compensation as per agreement. The respondent served legal notice, but plaintiff vacated premises without making payment of outstanding dues. The suit was 2026:BHC-GOA:1916 (2) wp-673-2026.odt contested by petitioners, issues were framed, respondent entered into witness box and he would cross-examine. At this stage, he filed application seeking amendment in plaint contending that at the time of filing complaint due to inadvertence period of agreement of management was wrongly mentioned in paragraph nos.1 and 2 of plaint as 01.10.2020 to 31.08.2021 instead of 01.10.2019 to 31.08.2020. The petitioners opposed application. However, by impugned order dated 07.02.2025, Trial Court allowed application and permitted amendment as prayed. 3. Mr. Shivan Desai, learned Advocate appearing for petitioners submits that Trial Court exceeded jurisdiction while permitting belated amendment ignoring Proviso to Rule 17 of Order XVI of Code of Civil Procedure. The respondent did not put forth plausible explanation for delay in bringing amendment. Further claim which is sought to be brought on record is time barred. The respondent consistently pleaded about agreement period from 01.10.2020 to 31.08.2021. He maintained same contention in his evidence affidavit and cross-examination and now wish to withdraw same by replacing period of agreement. He would submit that plaintiff cannot be given benefit of theory of relation back, even if such amendment is maintained. 4. Per contra, Ms. Maria Correia, learned Advocate appearing for respondent supports impugned order. According to her, inadvertent (3) wp-673-2026.odt error was crept into plaint, which has been corrected in tune with documentary evidence on record. It neither changes nature of claim nor it causes prejudice to petitioners. The petitioners shall be at liberty to raise contention in defence against amendment. 5. Having considered submissions advanced by learned Advocates appearing for respective parties and on perusal of record, it can be observed that respondent sought amendment to correct period of agreement, which is stipulated as 01.10.2020 to 31.08.2021 instead 01.10.2019 to 31.08.2020. The copy of agreement dated 05.04.2019 is part of record, which stipulates management period of 11 months starting from 01.10.2019 to 31.08.2020. In this background, amendment would not change very nature of suit and same would be required for final adjudication of dispute between parties. It is true that, amendment is at belated stage after commencement of trial. Therefore, respondent was under obligation to put forth explanation for not bringing amendment before commencement of trial. Only explanation given is that inadvertent error was observed only after commencement of trial. The aforesaid explanation may fall short. However, amendment in question is required for effective adjudication of dispute between parties and same does not change nature of dispute in suit. In this backdrop, power of Court to permit amendment is unfettered by restrictions under Proviso to Rule 17 of Order XVI of CPC. (4) wp-673-2026.odt 6. In case of Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Anr1, it has been observed that all amendments which are necessary for determining real question of controversy needs to be allowed, where it does not cause injustice or prejudice to other side. Even in case where claim by way of amendment is time barred, amendment can be allowed keeping issue of limitation to be framed separately for decision. In this backdrop, this Court finds that order impugned does not require interference under Article 227 of Constitution of India. 7. In result, Writ Petition stands dismissed. 8. Needless to state here that, petitioners shall be at liberty to raise question of limitation by filing additional written statement as regards to claim introduced by way of amendment and Trial Court would consider question of limitation as has been kept open to be considered at the time of final decision in suit. (S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR) JUDGE Devendra/September-2026 1 AIR 2022 Supreme Court 4256.