JUDGMENT :- Heard Shri C. A. Coutinho, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri 1. Godinho, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 2 to 6. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith by the consent of the learned Counsels. 3. Shri J. Godinho, learned Counsel waives service on behalf of the respondent nos. 2 to 6. 4. The above petition challenges an order passed by the learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Margao, in Regular Civil Suit No. 96/1994 dated 17.03.2011 whereby an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code for amendment of the plaint filed by the petitioner at Exhibit 83 was partly allowed and the prayer for declaration sought to be incorporated by the petitioner was rejected. 5. Shri C.A. Coutinho, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner during the course of the hearing of the above petition has pointed out that the only ground on which the prayer for declaration was rejected by the learned Judge as the prayer was not valued and the petitioner has not offered to pay the court fees. The learned Counsel further pointed out that the petitioner will value such prayer as well as pay the requisite court fees when the amendment is allowed to be carried out. 6. On the other hand, Shri J. Godinho, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 2 to 6 points out that in case the petitioner rectify the said defect, the petitioner may be allowed to incorporate such prayer though the petitioner is not entitled for such relief. 7. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsels and on perusal of the records, I find that merely because no requisite court fees were paid by the petitioner, it was not open to the learned Judge to dismiss the application for amendment to incorporate a relief in the prayer clause. The learned Judge could have directed the petitioner to pay the requisite court fees and value the prayer at the time of carrying out such amendment. Taking note of the contention of Shri C.A. Coutinho, the learned counsel that the petitioner would rectify the said defect and pay the requisite court fees, I find no reason not to allow the petitioner to amend the plaint to incorporate the relief after paying the requisite court fees. All contentions of the respondents on merits are left open. 8. Taking note of the contention of Shri C.A. Coutinho, the learned counsel that the petitioner would rectify the said defect and pay the requisite court fees, I find no reason not to allow the petitioner to amend the plaint to incorporate the relief after paying the requisite court fees. All contentions of the respondents on merits are left open. 8. Subject to the above, Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). The petition stands disposed of accordingly. Ordered accordingly.