The main legal point established in the judgment is that amendments to pleadings should be allowed if they are imperative for proper adjudication, do not change the cause of action, and are necessary for determining the real controversy.

1. Heard Mr. Kantak, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. Sardessai, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents no. 8 and 9.

2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith.

3. By consent heard forthwith.

4. By this petition, the petitioner has taken exception to the order dated 06/11/2013 passed by the learned District Judge-II, South Goa, Margao ('First Appellate Court') in Regular Civil Appeal No.39/2009.

5. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the petition, are as follows :

Respondents no.8 and 9 had filed a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction before the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Margao ('Trial Court') being Regular Civil Suit No.750/2000/C against the petitioners and respondents no. 1 to 7. The petitioners, as defendants no.3 and 4, filed their written statement and counterclaim. Respondents no.8 and 9 then filed their written statement to the counterclaim and also filed additional written statement. Vide judgment and decree dated 04/02/2009, the learned Trial Court decreed the suit partly and held that respondents no.8 and 9 are entitled to construct the compound wall in the suit plot, without blocking the access and/or gate of the petitioners. The counterclaim filed by the petitioners was also partly allowed and it was declared that the petitioners have a right of motorable access through the suit plot. The said judgment and decree dated 04/02/2009 passed by the Trial Court was challenged by the respondents no. 8 and 9 by filing Regular Civil Appeal No.39/2009 before the First Appellate Court. By judgment and decree dated 30/06/2009, the First Appellate Court dismissed the same. Respondents no. 8 and 9 thereafter filed Second Appeal No. 98/2009 before this Court. By judgment and order dated 02/08/2013, this Court partly allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the First Appellate Court for fresh adjudication on the issue of easement claimed by the defendants in terms of Section 15 of the Indian Easement Act.

6. After remand, on 05/10/2013, the petitioners filed an application for amendment of the written statement and counterclaim before the First Appellate Court for incorporating certain facts and for adding an alternate prayer in the counterclaim. Following was sought to be incorporated in the written statement:

(a) “Add after para 9 of the written statement:

'The said motorable access has been peaceably and openly enjoyed by the Defendants No. 3 and 4 as an easement as of right without interruption from the plaintiff for more than 30 years, at least from the year 1970 onwards.'

(b) Add after para 4 of the counterclaim:

'This access has been enjoyed by the Defendants No. 3 and 4 as an easement and as of right from 30 years.'

(c) After prayer b add b(i) in the counterclaim:

'b(i). Alternatively to declare that the defendants No. 3 and 4 have acquired easementary right over the said Motorable access through survey No.56/13 of village Varca, Salcete as shown in green colour at “Exhibit-A”.”

7. The respondents no.8 and 9 endorsed their reply on the said application for amendment objecting the same on the ground that it is beyond the scope of the remand of the proceedings made by the High Court; that it changes the nature of the suit; that the plaintiffs (respondents no. 8 and 9) will be highly prejudiced; and that the same has been filed only to delay the proceedings.

8. The application for amendment was dismissed by the First Appellate Court by order dated 06/11/2013, which order is impugned in the present petition.

9. Mr. Kantak, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that all the facts relevant for hearing the issue of easement by prescription under Section 15 of the Easement Act are already there in the written statement/counter claim. He then read out the schedule of the amendment proposed to be made to the written statement and the counterclaim and submitted that the amendment is merely for the purpose of in