SMT. LUIZA MARIA BAPTISTA, ALIAS MARIA LUIZA BAPTISTA Vs. FRANCISCO XAVIER BAPTISTA ALIAS FRANCISCO BATISTA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Shri A.F. Diniz, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Shri V. Menezes, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4 and Shri P. Arolkar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 5. None for the respondent No. 3 though served. The notice was also issued for final disposal at the stage of admission. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned counsel.

(2.) THE learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents waive service.

(3.) SHRI Diniz, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order on the ground that the amendment which is sought is to incorporate are facts which came to the knowledge of the petitioner after the filing of the suit and to include a prayer for compensation/damages in the alternative. The learned counsel further pointed out that the suit filed by the petitioner was originally for declaration to the effect that the Deed of Assignment of Illiquid Rights to the inheritance drawn on 03.01.1997 was null and void and for consequential relief to claim a right of pre -emption in respect of the transfer of the suit property. The learned counsel further pointed out that the petitioner had also sought for a permanent injunction with regard to the suit property and the petitioner learnt from the written statement filed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 that in fact the right of the deceased had already been allotted to the petitioner in the Decree passed in the partition suit and consequentially, the question of selling any illiquid right in the inheritance would not arise. The leaned counsel further pointed out that in view of the said document, the petitioner wanted to incorporate the said aspect and seek a relief in the alternative to claim an amount on the basis of the value of her share in the suit property. The learned counsel has taken me through the impugned order and pointed out that the learned Judge has erroneously dismissed the application for amendment.