Judgment : 1. Heard Mr. A. D. Bhobe, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. A. Kansar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned counsel. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents waives service. 4. The above petition challenges an order passed by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Bicholim, in Regular Civil Suit No. 52/2001 whereby an application for leave to produce the survey report, plan to incorporate such averments in the written statement came to be dismissed. 5. Mr. Bhobe, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners pointed out that the respondents filed a suit on the basis that the petitioners and the respondents are co-owners of the property surveyed under no. 50/14 of Maulinguem Village and prayed for a permanent injunction. In the said suit, it is the case of the petitioners that a part of the said survey number belongs exclusively to the petitioners herein. It is further contended by Mr. Bhobe, learned counsel that the said portion of the property claimed by the petitioners was earmarked in the plan produced along with the written statement by one of the defendants who has now expired. The learned counsel further pointed out that in order to identify the said portion of the property claimed by the petitioners a fresh surveyor was engaged to carry out such exercise and depict the said portion in the plan. The learned counsel further pointed out that this was required to be done as in the meanwhile during the course of the recording of evidence, the respondents produced additional documents in support of their case. The learned counsel further submitted that the learned Judge has dismissed the application to produce the said survey report and the plan and also to incorporate the said averments in the written statement on untenable grounds. The learned counsel further pointed out that the learned Judge has erroneously gone into the dispute while passing the impugned order. 6. Mr. A. Kansar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has pointed out that the survey report and the plan which is sought to be produced by the petitioners is substantially different from the plan which was originally produced by the petitioners along with their written statement. 6. Mr. A. Kansar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has pointed out that the survey report and the plan which is sought to be produced by the petitioners is substantially different from the plan which was originally produced by the petitioners along with their written statement. The learned counsel further pointed out that the petitioners can always produce the original survey plan through any of the other defendants and as such the question of producing any fresh plan would not arise. The learned counsel further pointed out that the claim of the petitioners itself is fictitious and as such according to him the question of producing such plan would unnecessarily change the nature of the suit as well as the reliefs claimed in the suit. The learned counsel further pointed out that there would be grave injustice to the respondents in case the production of the survey report, plan and the averments in the written statement are allowed as the evidence of the respondents has already been concluded. The learned counsel as such points out that the discretion exercised by the learned Judge does not require any interference by this Court. 7. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel and I have also gone through the records. On perusal of the issues framed by the Trial Court, the burden of proving issue no.4 is cast on the petitioners herein wherein the petitioners have to establish whether they are in possession of an area of 1170 square metres of the disputed property. Besides that the burden to prove issue no.6 is also on the petitioners with regard to the right of way claimed by the petitioners over the disputed property. It is not in dispute that the author of the earlier plan has expired. As such, merely producing the plan through the other defendants would not by itself establish the contents of the document. In such circumstances, the contention of Mr. Kansar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents that the petitioners can always produce the first plan through other defendants would not by itself establish the contents of such plan. In such circumstances, the petitioners can produce another plan of a fresh surveyor in support of their case. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the respondents have produced additional documents during the course of the evidence of the respondents. In such circumstances, the petitioners can produce another plan of a fresh surveyor in support of their case. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the respondents have produced additional documents during the course of the evidence of the respondents. In such circumstances, to meet such documents the petitioners to produce such survey report and plan. The averments sought to be introduced in the written statement are only to plead that they have engaged the services of a surveyor to identify the said portion of the disputed property. As such, the proposed amendment and the plan are referable to the dispute in the suit. It is contended by Mr. Bhobe, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the plan essentially depicts the area of 1704.6 which establish the re-casted issue nos.4 and 6. In such circumstances, the learned Judge was not justified to refuse leave to the petitioners to amend the written statement and produce the said survey report and plan. 8. With regard to the contention of Mr. Kansar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents that the original plan produced by the petitioners is substantially different from the plan which is now sought to be produced, I find that this aspect can always be raised by the respondents during the course of the trial of the suit. The plan which is attached to the written statement is part of record of the learned Judge. In case the respondents want to take any advantage in the said plan, it is always open to the respondents to raise such contention during the cross-examination of the petitioners which is not yet concluded. Apart from that, the respondents can always reserve their rights to lead rebuttal evidence, if any, in answer to the said survey report and plan sought to be produced by the petitioners. Whether the plan can be accepted and the mode of proving the contents of such plan is a matter which has to be examined by the learned Judge during the course of the hearing of the suit. Keeping all the contentions of Mr. Kansar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents with regard to the veracity of the plan open, I find that the learned Judge was not justified to pass the impugned order and refuse leave to the petitioners to amend the written statement and produce the said survey report and plan. Keeping all the contentions of Mr. Kansar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents with regard to the veracity of the plan open, I find that the learned Judge was not justified to pass the impugned order and refuse leave to the petitioners to amend the written statement and produce the said survey report and plan. However such leave to amend the written statement and production of the said plan and report would be subject to the payment of costs of Rs.2500/- as condition precedent to the respondents herein. Needless to say that the respondents are at liberty to lead rebuttal evidence, if so advised in answer to the said survey report and plan sought to be produced by the petitioners. 9. Subject to the above, Rule is made absolute in terms of the prayer clause (a).