Judgment Heard Shri J. Godinho, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Ms. Susan Linhares, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent waives service. 3. The above petition challenges an order passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division at Mapusa dated 12/06/2012 whereby an application under order 6 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code for amendment of the plaint came to be rejected. 4. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the petitioner filed the suit against the respondent inter alia raising the dispute with regard to the legality of the construction put up by the respondent in the property surveyed under no. 59/11 of Arpora Nagoa, Bardez Taluka. On the basis of such allegations the petitioner sought for a permanent injunction to restrain the respondent from carrying out any such construction and for mandatory injunction to demolish such construction. 5. The respondent disputed the claim put forward by the petitioner by filing their written statement. 6. During the pendency of the suit and before any evidence could be recorded and before issues were framed in the above suit the petitioner filed an application for amendment to incorporate in the plaint allegations inter alia with regard to the legality of the approved plan issued in favour of the respondent and also regarding cancellation of such approved plan. The petitioner also sought to implead the Chief Town Planner, Deputy Chief Planner and Village Panchayat of the said village as party defendants to the suit. 7. The application for amendment came to be opposed by the respondent on different grounds essentially on the ground that the learned Judge had no jurisdiction to decide the suit as against the Authorities and further that the plan which has been approved is in accordance with law and that the petitioner is unnecessarily raising false contentions. The learned Judge, by the impugned order dated 12/06/2012 dismissed the application filed by the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the said order the petitioner has preferred the above petition. 8. Shri J. Godinho, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has pointed out that it cannot be disputed that the pleadings proposed to be introduced pertaining to the dispute between the parties and the learned Judge was not justified to go into the merits of the dispute whilst deciding the application. 8. Shri J. Godinho, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has pointed out that it cannot be disputed that the pleadings proposed to be introduced pertaining to the dispute between the parties and the learned Judge was not justified to go into the merits of the dispute whilst deciding the application. The learned Counsel, as such, submits that the question as to whether the Court has jurisdiction or not is a matter which has to be decided on the basis of the pleadings of the parties thereafter. The learned Counsel further submitted that even assuming that the Court has no jurisdiction after the amendment is allowed the procedure as provided in the Civil Procedure Code and/or Civil Manuel would have to be followed. The learned Counsel has taken me through the amendment application and pointed out that the facts which are sought to be incorporated are necessary to decide the dispute between the parties. 9. On the other hand, Ms. S. Linhares, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent has supported the impugned order. The learned Counsel has pointed out that the learned Judge has rightly gone into the contentions of the petitioner and found that there are no illegalities found with regard to the disputed construction. The learned Counsel further pointed out that the question of impleading the statutory Authorities would not arise as according to her the suit itself is bad in law. The learned Counsel further pointed out that no statutory notice has been served and as such the question of the learned Judge allowing such amendment is totally misplaced. The learned Counsel has taken me through the impugned order and pointed out that the learned Judge has considered the matter in proper perspective. The learned Counsel as such submits that no interference is called for in the impugned order. 10. I have considered the submissions of the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties. I have also gone through the pleadings of the parties as well as the impugned order passed by the learned Judge. The suit filed by the petitioner is on the ground that the respondent has started an illegal excavation and that when questioned by the petitioner, he was informed by the respondent that he wanted to carry out the construction in the said property under survey no.59/11 and that he is carrying out the excavation for the purpose of erecting the RCC column. It is further his case that the petitioner informed the respondent to keep the necessary set backs to the suit property if at all he wanted to put up such construction. It is further his case that the complaints were lodged to the local Panchayat, the Block Development Officer and the Deputy Collector, Mapusa in respect of the disputed structure and that the Authorities did not take any action. It is further his case that the respondent is carrying out the construction without maintaining the requisite set backs and, as such, the petitioner has sought relief inter alia for permanent injunction to restrain the respondent from doing any construction within the set back area of 3 metres as prescribed under the statutes and also to demolish the encroachment done by the respondent within the said set back area. 11. The respondent filed the written statement. It is their contention that the respondent has all the legal permissions required in terms of law as well as the 'No Objection Certificate' from the Town and Country Planning Authorities, conversion sanad etc. to carry out the disputed construction. The contentions in the plaint have been disputed by the respondent. 12. In the amendment application filed by the petitioner, the petitioner wanted to implead the Chief Town Planner, the Deputy Town Planner as well as the Village Panchayat of Nagoa, as parties to the suit. It is sought to be contended by the petitioner that the said Authorities could not have granted the permission to the respondent without maintaining the set backs. It is further their case that the permissions in favour of the respondent are contrary to the rules. It is further their case that the Panchayat has granted the renewals/construction licence malafidely in flagrant and deliberate violation of the Goa, Daman and Diu Panchayats (Regulation of Buildings) Rules of 1971. The relief was sought to be incorporated to cancel the approvals granted in favour of the respondent and also to suspend/cancel the construction liecence issued in favour of respondent no.1 in violation of the Panchayat Rules. 13. It is the contention of the petitioner that they learnt about the said construction licence only after the written statement was filed by the respondent which entitled him to challenge the said sanctions. 14. 13. It is the contention of the petitioner that they learnt about the said construction licence only after the written statement was filed by the respondent which entitled him to challenge the said sanctions. 14. The application has been opposed by the respondent, inter alia,on the ground that it is only an attempt of the petitioner to further harass the respondent by involving the Government Authorities. The allegations in the application have been disputed by the respondent. The respondent has also opposed the application to implead the said parties in the suit. 15. The learned Judge by the impugned order dated 12/06/2012 has dismissed both the applications filed by the petitioner. The learned Judge found that considering the shape of the plot which is triangular, the petitioner has no grievance about the set backs which have been directed to be maintained by the Authorities. The learned Judge further found that no suit or other legal proceedings is maintainable against the Government, Planning and Development Authority or any of its Officers or persons duly appointed or authorized in respect of anything in good faith done or to be done under the provisions of the Goa, Daman and Diu, Town and Country Planning Act, 1974. The learned Judge further found that the plans have been approved by the Authorities in accordance with law. Hence, the application came to be rejected. 16. It is well settled that whilst deciding an application for amendment the merits of the allegations made therein cannot be adjudicated by the Court whilst deciding as to whether leave for amendment is to be granted. Hence, whether on merits the allegations of the petitioner have substance could not be considered by the learned Judge whilst passing the impugned order. It is the contention of the petitioner in the proposed amendment that the parties have acted with ulterior motives and/or with malafide purpose. It is further his case that acts of the Authorities are malafides in the eyes of law and in flagrant and deliberate violation of the provisions of law. Whether the Authorities have acted bonafide or in good faith is the matter which would have to be considered on its own merits. It is further his case that acts of the Authorities are malafides in the eyes of law and in flagrant and deliberate violation of the provisions of law. Whether the Authorities have acted bonafide or in good faith is the matter which would have to be considered on its own merits. Taking note of the allegations sought to be incorporated by the petitioner at this stage it was not open for the learned Judge to hold that the suit is barred as the respondent has acted with good faith. Hence, the learned Judge was not justified to go into the merits of the allegations sought to be incorporated whilst deciding the application for leave to amend the plaint. 17. It is not in dispute that the application for amendment has been filed before evidence has started. The allegations which are sought to be incorporated are in respect of the original pleadings which are found in the plaint filed by the petitioner. No doubt, the merits of the contentions will have to be kept open to be considered by the learned Judge at an appropriate stage after the parties join issues on the allegations made therein. All the contentions raised by the parties with regard to the merits of the proposed amendment are left open to be decided in accordance with law. The object of granting an application for leave to amend is that the Courts should try merits of the case that come before them and should consequently allow all amendments that may be necessary to determine the real question in controversy between the parties provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side. The power to allow the amendment is wide and can be exercised at any stage of the proceedings in the interest of justice. The main purpose to allow an amendment is to minimize the litigation. The above principles have been reiterated by the Apex Court in the judgment reported in 2012 (5) SCC 337 in the case of RameshkumarAgarwal V/s. Rajmala Exports Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. wherein it has been observed 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. wherein it has been observed 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 VI 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) 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.” 18. Considering that the allegations sought to be incorporated cannot be said to be inconsistent with the original pleadings and they do not alter the original cause of action, I find that the learned Judge was not justified to refuse leave on the application for amendment filed by the petitioner. There is nothing to show at this stage that the amendment is malafide or dishonest. Hence, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside. 19. Dealing with the contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent that the jurisdiction of the Court would be ousted in case the amendment is allowed, I find that this cannot be a reason to refuse an application for amendment. Hence, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside. 19. Dealing with the contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent that the jurisdiction of the Court would be ousted in case the amendment is allowed, I find that this cannot be a reason to refuse an application for amendment. In any event, in case there is ousted of jurisdiction of the Court, the learned Judge would have to consider the said aspect in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code and the Civil Manuel in accordance with law. In the present case, merely because the granting of an amendment may ousted the jurisdiction of the Court does not preclude the party to seek leave to amend the plaint. The learned Judge would consider this aspect only after the application for amendment is allowed. 20. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and for the reasons stated herein above, the learned Judge has erroneously exercised jurisdiction in refusing leave to amend the plaint whilst passing the impugned order which cannot be sustained and deserves to be quashed and set aside. 21. Shri J. Godinho, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner points out that he does not press to implead the Chief Town Planner as a party defendant to the suit filed by the petitioner. To that extent the application stands rejected. 22. In view of the above I pass the following order: ORDER (i) The impugned order dated 12/06/2012 is quashed and set aside. (ii) The application for amendment filed by the petitioner dated 27/02/2012 and the application to implead the parties viz. the Deputy Town Planner and the Village Panchayat of Nagoa, Arpora, is allowed. (iii) The respondent is at liberty to file additional written statement and raise all contentions on merits in accordance with law. (iv) Rule is made absolute in the above terms. (v) The petition stand disposed of.