IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
WRIT PETITION NO. 938 OF 2023
MR. JOSEPH PEREIRA, … PETITIONER
VERSUS
CRISTOVAM RAIMUNDO ANTONIO PEREIRA & ORS. … RESPONDENTS
(Dr. Neela Gokhale J.)
(D.O.D. 17.04.2026)
Civil Procedure Code, 1908- Order 8, Rule 1(A) and Order 6, rule 17- Production of additional documents and amendment of pleadings of Written Statement- Suit being at initial stage, issues not framed – merely placing the documents on record does not amount to having proved the said documents and the Petitioner in any case will be required to prove those documents and the contents therein – Petition allowed to amend the written statements to include the pleadings corresponding to the additional documents permitted to be filed.
Held
It is also seen that the Regular Civil Suit No. 277/2022/G is yet at the stage of hearing interim injunction applications. Issues have not yet been framed and the learned Civil Judge Junior Division has not yet applied his mind to the issues involved in the said Suit.
In these circumstances, I am of the opinion, that no prejudice will be caused to the Respondents herein if the additional documents comprising of plaint, written statement and depositions in the Partition Suit are permitted to be filed in Regular Civil Suit No. 277/2022/G.
The Petitioner herein is well within his rights to seek production of the additional documents and rely on the same while contesting the said Suit. Moreover, merely placing the documents on record does not amount to having proved the said documents and the Petitioner in any case will be required to prove those documents and the contents therein. (Para 8 and 9)
FACTS
The Respondent nos. 1 and 2 instituted Regular Civil Suit No. 277/2022/G before the Trial Court seeking a declaration of ownership and possession. The Petitioner is the Defendant no. 19 in the said Suit.
The Petitioner herein learnt that the Respondent nos. 1 and 2, had also instituted a Suit for partition against his family members who are Respondent nos. 3 and 4 in the present Petition. They are also Defendant nos. 29 and 30 in Regular Civil Suit No. 277/2022/G.
The Petitioner also came across the written statements filed by the Respondents’ brother in the Suit for partition wherein there were some pleadings relating to the ownership and title of the Respondent nos. 1 and 2 herein in the said property. According to the Petitioner, the pleadings in the said written statements corroborated his contention regarding his interest in the property. Hence, he made an application at Exhibit 26 in the Civil Suit seeking permission to file additional documents namely, the plaint in the Partition Suit, the written statements filed by the Respondents’ brother in the Partition Suit and the deposition of the said brother and few other witnesses recorded in the Partition Suit. Consequently, he filed an amendment application seeking permission to amend the written statement in the Regular Civil Suit No. 277/2022/G to bring on record pleadings related to the said additional documents which he intended to place on record.
By the impugned Order, both these applications were rejected. The Trial Court observed that the properties in the Regular Civil Suit No. 277/2022/G were distinct from the properties in relation to which Partition Suit was filed. Hence, on the ground that the said documents were not relevant for adjudicating the issues pending before the Court in Regular Civil Suit No. 277/2022/G, the applications were rejected. These Orders are assailed in the present Petition.
For Judgment Click 👇