1 wp 509 of 2026.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO.509 OF 2026 ROQUE FREDDIE MENINO EXANO PEREIRA AND ANR VERSUS PRIME BUILDERS AND 13 OTHERS … Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. V R Amonkar Advocate for Respondent no.1: Mr. Athnain Naik Advocate for Respondent 2-14 : Mr. Shailesh Henriques … Coram : S.G. Chapalgaonkar, J. Date : 16th September, 2026. ... FINAL ORDER :- 1. The petitioner impugns the order dated 29.04.2026 passed by learned Civil Judge S.D., B. Court, at Vasco, Goa in Special Civil Suit No.18/2020/B, whereby respondent/plaintiff is permitted to add the party to cause title of the suit. 2. The respondent no.1 instituted suit against petitioner and respondent nos.2 to 14 for conveying 3/5th of undivided share in respect of suit property in his favour contending that in terms of memorandum of understanding (MOU) entered into between himself and petitioner and some other persons, it has been agreed to sell 3/5th share in the suit property in his favour for total consideration of Rs.34,75,000/-. Petitioner contested the suit by filing written statement denying case of respondent no.1. The petitioner has raised a specific plea that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties as wife of defendant no.1 namely Mervia Genoveva Andrade is not made 2026:BHC-GOA:1858 2 wp 509 of 2026.odt as a party. On 27.07.2024 Trial Court framed 7 issues. The issue no.7 was framed “as to whether the suit is bad for non- joinder of necessary parties”. The plaintiff tendered evidence affidavit and while cross-examination was in progress, application was filed under Order VI Rule 17 read with section 151 of Civil Procedure Code seeking amendment of plaint and cause title, particularly, to add wife of defendant no.8 as defendant no.8A in the title clause. The petitioner opposed. However, Trial Court allowed the application by impugned order dated 29.04.2026. Hence, this petition. 3. Mr. Amonkar, learned advocate appearing for petitioner raised twofold objections to the impugned order. According to him, proposed amendment is sought after commencement of the trial without explanation for delay in bringing the application. Hence, it would hit by proviso of Rule 17 of Order VI of Civil Procedure Code. Secondly, on specific objection raised by petitioner in written statement, issue no.7 has been framed as to non-joinder of necessary party. As such, right has been accrued in favour of the petitioner, which cannot be taken away at this stage. 4. In support of his contentions, he relies upon the observations of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Ajendraprasadji N. Pandey and another Vs. Swami 3 wp 509 of 2026.odt Keshavprakeshdasji N. and others reported in (2006) 12 SCC 1 and judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court in case of Naib Singh Vs. Harnek Mohd and Khair Din and others reported in 2010 SCC online P & H 4262. 5. Per contra, Mr. Naik learned advocate appearing for respondent no.1 and Mr.S.Henriques learned advocate appearing for respondent nos.2 to 14 supports the impugned order. 6. Mr. Naik relying upon observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Mumbai International Airport (P) Ltd. Vs. Regency Convention Centre and Hotels (P) Ltd., reported in (2010) 7 Supreme Court Cases 417 would submit that Court has discretion to add a person as a party if such person is found to be necessary party or proper party in terms of Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of the Civil Procedure Code. In the present case, Trial Court directed addition of party, who was necessary to effectively adjudicate the dispute between the parties. 7. Having considered submissions advanced by learned advocates appearing for respective parties, it cannot be disputed that, petitioner has specifically raised objection in the written statement regarding non-joinder of necessary party. Eventually, issue no.7 was framed. Inspite of such objection, 4 wp 509 of 2026.odt respondent no.1/plaintiff failed to take remedial measures till commencement of the trial. The application Exhibit-61 seeking impleadment of defendant no.8A was made after commencement of trial at the stage when plaintiff was in the witness box. In this backdrop, if application is treated to be under Order VI Rule 17 of Civil Procedure Code, the proviso to Rule 17 would come into picture and plaintiff would be under obligation to make out case of due diligence for not having raised matter before commencement of trial. However, perusal of application Exhibit-61 clearly shows that application cannot be strictly construed as an application for amendment, but it will have to be construed as an application under Order I Rule 10 of Civil Procedure Code for impleadment of the party. The Order 1 Rule 10(2) of Civil Procedure Code reads thus :- 10. Suit in name of wrong plaintiff :- (1) ……………. (2) Court may strike out or add parties – The Court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the Court to be just, order that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, be struck out, and that the name, of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added. 5 wp 509 of 2026.odt 8. The aforesaid rule has been considered and elaborated by the Supreme Court in case of Mumbai International Airport Private Limited (supra) and it has been observed in paragraph no.22, as under :- “22. Let us consider the scope and ambit of Order I of Rule 10(2) CPC regarding striking out or adding parties. The said sub-rule is not about the right of a non-party to be impleaded as a party, but about the judicial discretion of the court to strike out or add parties at any stage of a proceeding. The discretion under the sub-rule can be exercised either suo moto or on the application of the plaintiff or the defendant, or on an application of a person who is not a party to the suit. The court can strike out any party who is improperly joined. The court can add anyone as a plaintiff or as a defendant if it finds that he is a necessary party or proper party. Such deletion or addition can be without any conditions or subject to such terms as the court deems fit to impose. In exercising its judicial discretion under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code, the court will of course act according to reason and fair play and not according to whims and caprice.” 9. The aforesaid exposition of law clearly demonstrates that the Court is empowered to direct impleadment of the party if it finds that he is a necessary or proper party for effective adjudication of the dispute in the suit. 10. In present case, petitioner himself pleaded in his written statement that wife of defendant no.8 is necessary party and her non-impleadment would amount to non-joinder of necessary party. In this backdrop, exercise of jurisdiction by Trial Court, may be on application filed by respondent no.1/plaintiff, cannot be faulted thereby requiring interference 6 wp 509 of 2026.odt of this Court under Article 227 of Constitutions of India. In this backdrop, contention of petitioner that application could not have been entertained in light of proviso to Rule 17 of Order VI cannot be accepted or that would not be considered an impediment for exercise of powers by Court under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Code. However, in facts of this case, petitioner ought to have been compensated for delay in bringing amendment application. Respondent no.1 was made aware of defect of non-joinder by specific plea in written statement followed by framing of issues, but application Exhibit-61 has been filed after 20 months when trial began in suit. Hence, while rejecting writ petition, respondent/plaintiff needs to be put on cost. 11. In result, Writ Petition stands dismissed. However, respondent shall pay costs of Rs.5,000/- (Rs. Five Thousand) to petitioner within a period of four (4) weeks, failing which application Exhibit-61 shall be deemed to be rejected. ( S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR ) Judge … aaa/- Signed by: TARI AMRUT NAGESH Designation: Private Secretary Date: 17/09/2026 14:53:27