Judgment: Heard Shri Nigel Da Costa Frias, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Shri Sudesh Usgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for respondents no.1 to 3. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel. Learned Counsel appearing for respondents no.1 to 3 waives service. 3. The above petition challenges an order passed by the learned Civil Judge Junior Division at Margao dated 7/11/2012 whereby an application filed by the petitioners to amend the written statement came to be rejected. 4. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the respondents filed the suit inter alia on the basis that they are the owners in possession of the property bearing survey no.87/14-C of village Orlim which the respondents are developing in exercise of their proprietary right upon obtaining requisite sanction. In view of the interference on behalf the respondents the suit came to be filed by the petitioners restraining the respondents from interfering with such development. 5. The petitioners filed their written statement inter alia claiming that they have an easementary right of access to come to their paddy filed located on the southern west side of the suit property. The petitioners also raised other defences in the said written statement. Before the trial had commenced the petitioners filed an application for amendment inter alia clarifying the location of the alleged traditional access through the property of the respondents. 6. The respondents opposed the said application and by the impugned order the learned Judge refused to grant leave to amend the written statement. 7. Shri Nigel Da Costa Frias, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners pointed out that the learned Judge has gone into the merits of the matter and refused the application for leave to amend which is not permissible. The learned Counsel further pointed out that it cannot be disputed that the easementary right was already claimed by the petitioners in the original written statement and by the proposed amendment the petitioners only wanted to clarify the location. The learned Counsel further pointed out that considering the nature of the dispute between the parties the learned Judge was not justified to pass the impugned order to refuse the application for amendment. 8. On the other hand, Shri Sudesh Usgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents no. 1 to 3 has vehemently opposed the above petition. The learned Counsel further pointed out that considering the nature of the dispute between the parties the learned Judge was not justified to pass the impugned order to refuse the application for amendment. 8. On the other hand, Shri Sudesh Usgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents no. 1 to 3 has vehemently opposed the above petition. The learned Counsel further pointed out that there were already earlier proceedings initiated as Public Interest Litigation before this Court wherein there was appropriate adjudication with regard to such claim put forward by the petitioners. The learned Counsel further pointed out that the petitioners in the earlier written statement were claiming the right of access through the middle of the property and now the petitioners are taking an inconsistent plea by claiming such easementary right through the side as traditional access. The learned Counsel further pointed out that earlier the petitioners were claiming an easementary access and now the petitioners are alleging a claim of traditional access. The learned Counsel further pointed out that these inconsistencies cannot be raised by the petitioners. The learned Counsel further pointed out that in view of the findings of this Court whilst disposing of the Writ Petition the proposed amendment is irrelevant for the purpose of deciding the matter in controversy. The learned Counsel further pointed out that no interference is called for in the impugned order. 9. I have considered the submissions of the learned Counsel and I have also gone through the records. It cannot be disputed that the proposed amendment is referable to the dispute in the suit. The Apex Court in the judgment dated 27.09.2012 in Civil Appeal no. 7043 of 2012 in the case of Abdul Rehman & Anr vs. Mohd. Ruldu & Ors., after considering the amendment to Order 6 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code, has observed at paras 7, 8 and 15, thus: “7) It is clear that parties to the suit are permitted to bring forward amendment of their pleadings at any stage of the proceeding for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between them. The Courts have to be liberal in accepting the same, if the same is made prior to the commencement of the trial. The Courts have to be liberal in accepting the same, if the same is made prior to the commencement of the trial. If such application is made after the commencement of the trial, in that event, the Court has to arrive at a conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. 8) The original provision was deleted by Amendment Act 46 of 1999, however, it has again been restored by Amendment Act 22 of 2002 but with an added proviso to prevent application for amendment being allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. The above proviso, to some extent, curtails absolute discretion to allow amendment at any stage. At present, if application is filed after commencement of trial, it has to be shown that in spite of due diligence, it could not have been sought earlier. The object of the rule is that Courts should try the merits of the case that come before them and should, consequently, allow all amendments that may be necessary for determining the real question in controversy between the parties provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side. This Court, in a series of decisions has held that the power to allow the amendment is wide and can be exercised at any stage of the proceeding in the interest of justice. The main purpose of allowing the amendment is to minimize the litigation and the plea that the relief sought by way of amendment was barred by time is to be considered in the light of the facts and circumstances of each case. The above principles have been reiterated by this Court in J. Samuel and Others vs. Gattu Mahesh and Others, (2012) 2 SCC 300 and Rameshkumar Agarwal vs. Rajmala Exports Pvt. Ltd. and Others, (2012) 5 SCC 337 . Keeping the above principles in mind, let us consider whether the appellants have made out a case for amendment. (emphasis supplied). 15) We reiterate that all amendments which are necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties should be allowed if it does not change the basic nature of the suit. Keeping the above principles in mind, let us consider whether the appellants have made out a case for amendment. (emphasis supplied). 15) We reiterate that all amendments which are necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties should be allowed if it does not change the basic nature of the suit. A change in the nature of relief claimed shall not be considered as a change in the nature of suit and the power of amendment should be exercised in the larger interests of doing full and complete justice between the parties.” 10. The Apex Court in the judgment reported in 2006 (4) SCC 385 in the case of Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal & Ors. V/s. K.K. Modi & Ors. has inter alia observed at paras 15, 16, 17 & 19 thus: “15. The object of the rule is that Courts should try the merits of the case that come before them and should, consequently, allow all amendments that may be necessary for determining the real question in controversy between the parties provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side. 16. Order VI Rule 17 consist of two parts whereas the first part is discretionary (may) and leaves it to the Court to order amendment of pleading. The second part is imperative (shall) and enjoins the Court to allow all amendments which are necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties. 17. In our view, since the cause of action arose during the pendency of the suit, proposed amendment ought to have been granted because the basic structure of the suit has not changed and that there was merely change in the nature of relief claimed. We fail to understand if it is permissible for the appellants to file an independent suit, why the same relief which could be prayed for in the new suit cannot be permitted to be incorporated in the pending suit. 19. While considering whether an application for amendment should or should not be allowed, the Court should not go into the correctness or falsity of the case in the amendment. 19. While considering whether an application for amendment should or should not be allowed, the Court should not go into the correctness or falsity of the case in the amendment. Likewise, it should not record a finding on the merits of the amendment and the merits of the amendment sought to be incorporated by way of amendment are not to be adjudged at the stage of allowing the prayer for amendment. This cardinal principle has not been followed by the High Court in the instant case.” 11. Considering the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the said judgment, it is now well settled that a liberal view is to be taken in granting amendments to the pleadings when such applications are filed before the trial has commenced. No doubt, all the contentions raised by the respondents are essentially in defence to the claim sought to be taken by the petitioners in the proposed amendment. Keeping all the contentions of the respondents open, I find that there is no reason to reject leave to the petitioners to amend the written statement. No doubt, the learned Judge whilst passing the impugned order has gone into the merits of the said proposed amendment and dismissed the application for leave to amend. It is now well settled in the case of Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal & Ors. V/s. K.K. Modi & Ors. (supra) that the merits of the proposed amendment cannot be gone into whilst granting such leave. The only aspect to be considered is whether the amendment is necessary to decide the matter in controversy. In the present case, it cannot be disputed that the suit filed by the respondents is for a permanent injunction and the petitioners are claiming some right to the suit property. Such claim would be otherwise necessary to decide the dispute. Keeping all the contentions of the respondents open with regard to the merits of the said amendment, I find that the impugned order passed by the learned Judge dismissing the application for leave to amend the written statement deserves to be quashed and set aside. 12. Considering the nature of the dispute and the contentions sought to be raised by the respondents, I find that in the interest of justice the respondents should be given liberty to file additional pleadings to rebut the contentions made in the proposed amendment. 12. Considering the nature of the dispute and the contentions sought to be raised by the respondents, I find that in the interest of justice the respondents should be given liberty to file additional pleadings to rebut the contentions made in the proposed amendment. Shri Nigel Da Costa Frias, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners has no objection in case such pleadings are filed by the respondents. 13. Subject to the above, Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer (a). The petition stands disposed of.