The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for a liberal approach to amendments to pleadings, especially when sought prior to the commencement of the trial, in order to determine the real questions in controversy between the parties.

Heard Shri Rohit Bras De Sa, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Shri Zeller D' Souza, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent nos. 5 to 10 and Shri Sagar Dhargalkar, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the Respondent nos. 1 to 4.

2. The above Petition seeks for the following relief:

For a writ of Certiorari or any other writ, order or direction calling for the records and proceedings in Civil Suit no. 34/2009 on the file of the Adhoc District Judge I F, South Goa, at Margao, and after considering the legality, proprietary and correctness of the impugned Order dated 19.1.2011 and Order dated 20.6.2011, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash and set aside the Impugned Order made on the application filed under Order VI Rule 17 and Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the Petitioners filed a suit on the basis that they are owners in possession of the property which they had purchased pursuant to a Sale Deed dated 21.10.1967 of the property surveyed under no. 50/31 and 39/1 of Majorda Village.

4. Before the trial had commenced, the Petitioners filed the above application for amendment to amend the plaint, inter alia, to contend that they are also owners of the suit property by adverse possession and/or prescription. The Respondents opposed the said application essentially on the ground that such amendment was malafide and further that the pleas sought to be taken are self destructive. Learned Judge by the impugned Order dismissed the application filed by the Petitioner for amendment of the plaint.

5. Shri Rohit Bras De Sa, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, has assailed the impugned Order on the ground that it was the case of the Petitioner at Paras 3 and 4 of the plaint that even prior to the Sale Deed, the Petitioners were in possession of the property according to him adversely to the interest of the vendors. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the learned Judge has failed to consider that the claim of the Respondents is that they are owners of the suit property on the basis of another Sale Deed executed by the Respondent nos. 5 to 8. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the learned Judge has come to the conclusion that self destructive pleas cannot be allowed to be taken without going into the aspect that the claim of the Petitioners in, any event, was in the alternative. Learned Counsel further pointed out that he desires to introduce the word "in the alternative" in the relief sought by the proposed amendment. Learned Counsel has taken me through the impugned Order as well as through the plaint and pointed out that there is no bar to seek such amendment of plaint. Learned Counsel as such submits that the impugned Order deserves to be quashed and set aside.

6. On the other hand, Shri Zeller D' Souza, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent nos. 5 to 10, has vehemently opposed the said amendment application. Learned Counsel further pointed out that such amendment is a dishonest attempt on the part of the Petitioners to seek the amendment on false and vexatious grounds. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the question of granting any relief in the absence of the vendors is totally misplaced. Learned Counsel has taken me through the plaint and pointed out that the original claim of the Petitioner is that they are owners of the property on the basis of the alleged Sale Deed and the question of claiming any adverse and prescriptive title is totally misconceived. Learned Counsel has further pointed out that considering the malafides and the dishonest attempts on the part of the Petitioners, the question of any interference by this Court does not arise.

7. I have care fully considered the submissions of the learned Counsel. I have also gone through the records. No doubt, the Petitioners should have sought the relief claimed by them on the basis that they have become owners by prescription ought to have b