Judgment : Heard Shri M.B. Da Costa, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents, Shri J.P. Mulgaonkar, the learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.1, Shri P. Rao, the learned Counsel appearing for respondents No.19 & 20 and Mrs. A. Agni, the learned Counsel appearing for respondents No.21 to 23. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel. The notice issued to the respondents was for disposal of the above petition finally at the stage of admission. Hence, with the consent of the learned Counsel the petition was heard finally. 3. The above petition challenges the order passed by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division at Panaji dated 19/07/2011 whereby an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code filed by the petitioners to amend the plaint came to be rejected. 4. The suit filed by the petitioner is inter alia for seeking a declaration that the mortgage deed dated 5/09/1995 and all other subsequent and incidental proceedings including award, auction sales be declared as fraudulent or null and void and/or not binding on the petitioners. The other relief sought is for rectifying survey records as well as a relief for permanent injunction. 5. The respondents have disputed the claim of the petitioners by filing appropriate written statement. It is also reported that an application under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code was filed by some of the respondents which is pending consideration of the learned Judge. During the pendency of such proceedings and before the evidence was recorded the petitioners had filed an application for amendment of the plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code inter alia incorporating some facts which according to them came to their knowledge only after filing of the suit. The petitioners also desired to introduce some reliefs in the plaint. The relief inter alia included a claim to redeem the mortgage by depositing the amount being co-owners of the property. The other reliefs were to the effect that the sale certificate dated 10/12/2001 and the corrigendum dated 17/03/2005 be declared as null and void besides a declaration that the suit sales be also declared as null and void and that all the developments carried out may be ordered to be demolished besides restoration of possession. The other reliefs were to the effect that the sale certificate dated 10/12/2001 and the corrigendum dated 17/03/2005 be declared as null and void besides a declaration that the suit sales be also declared as null and void and that all the developments carried out may be ordered to be demolished besides restoration of possession. After hearing the parties the learned Judge by the impugned order rejected the application filed by the petitioner. Whilst disposing of the said application the learned Judge came to the conclusion that when the petitioners themselves are claiming that there is no mortgage executed the question of seeking its redemption would not arise. The learned Judge, as such found that such reliefs if granted would be self destructive and inconsistent with the original pleadings of the petitioner. Consequently, the said application came to be rejected by the impugned order. 6. Shri M.B. Da Costa, the learned Senior Counsel has pointed out that the pleadings which are sought to be incorporated by the proposed amendment are matters which came to their knowledge only after the filing of the suit. The learned Senior Counsel further pointed out that it cannot be disputed that the Sale Deeds which are sought to be challenged are relating to the suit property and, as such, the question of the proposed amendment not referring to the dispute raised by the petitioners in the plaint cannot be accepted. The learned Senior Counsel further points out that according to the petitioners relief of redemption of mortgage is in the alternative. The learned Senior Counsel further points out that as the evidence has not yet started the learned Judge erroneously exercised its discretion in refusing the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code without taking note of the fact that averments sought to be incorporated by the petitioners are in consonance with the original pleadings of the petitioners. The learned Senior Counsel, as such, submits that the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside. 7. On the other hand, Shri P. Rao, the learned Counsel appearing for respondents no.19 and 20 pointed out that once the petitioners themselves claim that there is no mortgage executed the question of seeking any redemption of mortgage would not arise. The learned Senior Counsel, as such, submits that the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside. 7. On the other hand, Shri P. Rao, the learned Counsel appearing for respondents no.19 and 20 pointed out that once the petitioners themselves claim that there is no mortgage executed the question of seeking any redemption of mortgage would not arise. The learned Counsel further pointed out that the Sale Deeds which are sought to be impugned are from the year 2006 onwards and according to him the relief sought by the petitioners is barred by law of limitation. The learned Counsel further disputed the contention of the learned Senior Counsel that the petitioners came to know about the said sale deeds only after filing of the suit. The learned Counsel further points out that the question of incorporating such time barred plea does not arise and, as such, the learned Judge has rightly exercised jurisdiction whilst deciding the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Civil procedure Code. The learned Counsel, as such, submits that the petition deserves to be rejected. 8. Mrs. Agni as well as Shri J.P. Mulgaonkar, the learned Counsel have supported the submissions of Shri Rao, the learned Counsel appearing for the said respondents. The learned Counsel has pointed out that the reliefs sought to be incorporated are barred by law of limitation. The learned Counsel as such submitted that in any event in case amendment is allowed it should not relate back to the filing of the suit. 9. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned Counsel. I have also perused the records. The learned Counsel for the respondents are otherwise justified to contend that prima facie the relief of redemption would be inconsistent with the original pleadings filed by the petitioners. At this stage, Shri M.B. Da Costa, the learned Senior Counsel, upon instructions, submits that he will not press to incorporate the relief of redemption in the plaint. Hence, prayer (b,b) sought to be incorporated by the petitioners as prayed for in the draft amendment stands rejected. 10. With regard to the remaining facts which are sought to be incorporated and the consequential reliefs which are prayed for, I find that the petitioners contend that they learnt about the said aspect only after the filing of the suit. Hence, prayer (b,b) sought to be incorporated by the petitioners as prayed for in the draft amendment stands rejected. 10. With regard to the remaining facts which are sought to be incorporated and the consequential reliefs which are prayed for, I find that the petitioners contend that they learnt about the said aspect only after the filing of the suit. Be that as it may, it cannot be disputed that the facts sought to be incorporated are in respect of the suit property and some mortgage transaction referred to in the plaint. As evidence has not started, I find that the learned Judge was not justified to refuse the application for amendment in toto. It is well settled that normally amendments are allowed in the pleadings to avoid multiplicity of the litigations. The Apex Court in recent judgment reported in 2012 (5) SCC 337 in the case of Rameshkumar Agarwal V/s. RajmalaExports Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. has held at paras 21 and 22 thus: “21. It is clear that while deciding the application for amendment ordinarily the Court must not refuse bona fide, legitimate, honest and necessary amendments and should never permit mala fide and dishonest amendments. The purpose and object of Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code is to allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just. Amendment cannot be claimed as a matter of right and under all circumstances, but the Courts while deciding such prayers should not adopt a hyper-technical approach. Liberal approach should be the general rule particularly, in cases where the other side can be compensated with costs. Normally, amendments are allowed in the pleadings to avoid multiplicity of litigations. 22. Amendment cannot be claimed as a matter of right and under all circumstances, but the Courts while deciding such prayers should not adopt a hyper-technical approach. Liberal approach should be the general rule particularly, in cases where the other side can be compensated with costs. Normally, amendments are allowed in the pleadings to avoid multiplicity of litigations. 22. In view of the fact that the amendment application came to be filed immediately after filing of the suit (suit came to be filed in 2007 and the amendment application was in 2008) i.e. before commencement of the trial and taking note of the fact that the learned single Judge confined the relief only to a certain extent and also that in the proposed amendment the Plaintiff wants to explain how the money was paid, though necessary averments in the form of foundation have already been laid in the original plaint, we hold that by this process the Plaintiff is not altering the cause of action and in any way prejudice Defendants.” 11. Considering the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the said judgment, I find that as it is contended by the petitioners that they learnt about the facts sought to be incorporated only after filing of the suit and it is not in dispute that the allegations therein pertain to the suit property, the learned Judge was not justified to refuse the application for amendment leave to amend the plaint in toto. 12. With regard to the contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents to the effect that amendment should not relate back to the filing of the suit, I find that on perusal of the draft amendment it is the case of the petitioners that they learnt about the said transaction only after the filing of the suit. In any event, the question as to whether such relief is within limitation is a matter which is kept open and the respondents are at liberty to raise such contentions in the additional written statement which they will be entitled to file after such leave to amend is allowed. It is clarified that all the contentions of the respondents on merits and the claim that the reliefs sought are time barred are left open. It is clarified that all the contentions of the respondents on merits and the claim that the reliefs sought are time barred are left open. Subject to the above, I find that there is no reason to refuse the application for amendment except the relief of redemption sought to be incorporated in prayer (b,b). 13. At this stage, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents have pointed out that they intend to file an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code and any observations made herein should not influence the learned Judge in deciding such application. It is well settled that any observations made in Miscellaneous Application for leave to amend should not influence the learned Judge in deciding any other application filed by the respondents which should be dealt with on its own merits in accordance with law. Subject to the above, the application for leave to amend filed by the petitioners is liable to be allowed, to the extent mentioned herein above. 14. In view of the above, I pass the following Order: ORDER (i) Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer (a) in the light of the observations made herein above. (ii) The petition stands disposed of accordingly with no orders as to costs.