Bombay High Court
Communidade Of Sancoale Thr Attorney ... vs Mahendra Srinivas Caculo And 2 Ors on 10 December, 2025
2025:BHC-GOA:2441
2025:BHC-GOA:2441
WP 521 of 2023
Jose
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
WRIT PETITION NO.521 OF 2023
COMMUNIDADE OF SANCOALE THR
ATTORNEY JAYESH G. PHADTE ... PETITIONER
Versus
MAHENDRA SRINIVAS CACULO AND 2 ORS ... RESPONDENTS
Mr. Hanumant D. Naik, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. Yash Naik, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. (through
V.C.)
Mr. Shivdatt Munj, Additional Government Advocate for
Respondent No. 3.
CORAM:- VALMIKI MENEZES, J.
DATED :- 10th December, 2025 P.C.:
1. This petition challenges two orders, both of 18.07.2023, passed by the Court of the Civil Judge Senior Division, Vasco da Gama in Special Civil Suit No.19/2011/A. The first order has been passed on Exhibit 158, which is an application for amendment of the Written Statement filed by Defendant No.1 in the suit/Petitioner herein. The second order of the same date is passed on Exhibit 157 filed by the same Defendant under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC seeking impleadment of the Ministry of Defence as a Defendant in the suit.
2. At the outset, it must be noted that the application for amendment, Page 1 of 3 10th December, 2025 ::: Uploaded on - 10/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 10/12/2025 21:10:08 ::: WP 521 of 2023 which is filed on 15.04.2023, has been filed 11 years after the Written Statement of the Petitioner was filed, in the year 2012. This suit is of the year 2011. The only reason cited for crossing the specific bar in the proviso of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was that a new Committee of the Defendant No.1 came to be elected in the year 2021, after which this Committee sought legal advice in the year 2023, and on such advice, sought amendment of the Written Statement. In the present case, the issues were framed, trial commenced, and the Plaintiff has completed his evidence, followed by three witnesses having been examined by this very Defendant. In the absence of any averments in the application to justify the delay in amending the pleadings and pleading such jurisdictional facts as are required by the proviso under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, the application could not have been granted. The Trial Court has rightly held so in the impugned order after making efforts in two Judgments of the Supreme Court directly on the point, and considering the law on the subject.
3. The application ought to have been dismissed for yet another reason. The averments contained in the draft amendment are all facts which, even if they were clarificatory in nature, were available and within the knowledge of the Defendant in the year 2012. These are not subsequent or new facts, and there was no justification for such facts to be pleaded as late as 11 years after the Written Statement was filed.
4. The impugned order is a well-reasoned order based upon the Page 2 of 3 10th December, 2025 ::: Uploaded on - 10/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 10/12/2025 21:10:08 ::: WP 521 of 2023 correct application of the law contained in the provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC and does not call for any interference in the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
The application at Exhibit 157 rejecting the impleadment of the Ministry of Defence has also been correctly passed since that application would depend upon the grant of the amendment of the pleadings contained in Exhibit 158. The application, therefore, has been correctly dismissed.
5. For all the aforesaid reasons, the petition is dismissed in limine. No costs.
VALMIKI MENEZES, J.
Page 3 of 310th December, 2025 ::: Uploaded on - 10/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 10/12/2025 21:10:08 :::