This writ petition challenged the Civil Court's refusal to allow amendment of plaint and framing of additional issues at the final arguments stage. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that exercising writ jurisdiction was not warranted.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
WRIT PETITION NO. 245 OF 2013
SMT. AUTILIA IDUBER ARDANJALA REP. THROUGH P.O.A SMT. MARIA SACRAMENTA TEREZA AND 3 ORS. ... Petitioners Versus SMT. ADELIADE ANTAO AND 7 ORS. ... Respondents
Shri Gaurish N. Agni, Advocate for the Petitioners. Shri Sudin Usgaonkar, Advocate for Respondents No.2 & 3. Shri P. Arolkar, Advocate for Respondent No.8.
Coram:R. M. SAVANT, J. Date:25th September, 2013
P.C.:
The orders dated 28/01/2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge Junior division, 'C' Court, Margao by which the application for amendment of the plaint and for framing of additional issues came to be rejected, are the subject matter of the above petition.
2
R. M. SAVANT, J.
NH
2 issues framed by the court
Whether writ jurisdiction is warranted to challenge the rejection of application for amendment of plaint and framing of additional issues.
Whether refusal to amend plaint and frame additional issues at final arguments stage warrants issuance of writ.
SMT. AUTILIA IDUBER ARDANJALA
SMT. ADELIADE ANTAO
R. M. SAVANT
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
