(1) wp-342-2024.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO.342 OF 2024 MR. SHRIKANT NARAYAN MANDREKAR AND ANOTHER VERSUS MRS. LAXMI LAXMAN MANDREKAR AND OTHERS … Mr. Arjun Naik (through V.C.) Advocate for Petitioners. … CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J. DATED : 24th SEPTEMBER, 2026. FINAL ORDER :- 1. The petitioners impugns order dated 06.03.2024 passed by Civil Judge Junior Division, Bicholim, Goa in Regular Civil Suit No.147/2014/B, thereby rejecting petitioners’ application seeking amendment in title clause of plaint, particularly as regards to name of petitioner no.1. 2. The petitioners instituted Regular Civil Suit No.147/2014/B seeking relief of partition in respect of property Gorbata and Molo within limit of Sanquleim Municipal Council bearing Survey No.33/4 of village Maulingem South. According to petitioner, said property was purchased by petitioner no.1 alongwith his deceased brother Laxman Mandrekar @ Manjarekar vide registered sale deed dated 31.01.1970. Thereafter, houses were constructed over that property. In order to partition said property, petitioners have instituted suit. The name of petitioner no.1 is recorded in sale deed as Shrikant Narayan Manjrekar. However, while instituting suit, petitioner no.1 stated his name as Shrikant Narayan Mandrekar. The suit proceeded. When it was at the 2026:BHC-GOA:1921 (2) wp-342-2024.odt stage of recording evidence, difference in surname of petitioner no.1 in sale deed was surfaced. The petitioner, therefore, filed application seeking permission to amend title clause of plaint to add his name alias Shrikant Narayan Manjrekar. The Trial Court rejected application mainly on ground that amendment is brought after commencement of trial and there is no explanation in terms of Proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure. 3. The notice of present Writ Petition was served upon respondents. The respondent nos.2 and 3 had appeared through Advocate Aadityasen Sardesai Rane whose appearance was discharged by order dated 14.08.2025. The Registry recorded that respondent nos.2 and 3 have duly acknowledged No Objection Certificate dated 23.06.2025. However, respondent nos.2 and 3 did not appear before this Court either personally or through Advocate. 4. Mr. Arjun Naik, learned Advocate appearing for petitioners invites attention of this Court to contents of sale deed and Form I and XIV of Survey No.33/4, which shows that petitioner no.1’s name has been recorded as Shrikant Narayan Manjrekar alongwith his brother Laxman Narayan Manjrekar in record of rights. The petitioners sought to bring on record amendment with a view to reconcile repugnancy in his name. The application for amendment is not for bringing change in (3) wp-342-2024.odt pleading. It is simply for affixing additional name to that of petitioner no.1. 5. In this backdrop, Trial Court was not justified in refusing amendment referring to bar contemplated under Proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure. Even otherwise, change sought to be introduced by way of application for amendment/correction, is necessary to adjudicate dispute between parties. The Trial Court adopted hyper-technical approach while rejecting petitioners’ application filed below Exhibit D-63. Hence, following order: ORDER a. Writ Petition is allowed. b. The impugned order dated 06.03.2024 passed by Civil Judge Junior Division, Bicholim, Goa in Regular Civil Suit No.147/2014/B is quashed and set aside. c. The petitioners’ application Exhibit D-63 is allowed. d. Amendment to be carried as per draft amendment specified in paragraph no.5 of application. (S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR) JUDGE Devendra/September-2026