LAWS(BOM)-2025-2-170

ANIL Vs. PRATIBHA

Decided On February 07, 2025
ANIL Appellant
V/S
PRATIBHA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith with the consent and at the request of the learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The learned Ad-hoc District Judge, (FTC-1), Panaji, Goa I/C of DJ-3 Panaji, Goa ("the learned trial Court" hereinafter) has vide impugned order dtd. 23/10/2024; passed in Civil Suit no. 36/2013 (Mr. Anil alias Audhut B. Dhepe and others Vs. Mrs. Pratibha Pandurang Dhepe and others) dismissed the application filed by the plaintiffs,(hereinafter referred to as the petitioners), under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) seeking to amend the prayer clause (b) as under:

(3.) The petitioners, as plaintiffs, have filed the application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC to amend the plaint against Respondents No. 1 to 7, as Defendants no.1 to 7 therein (hereinafter referred to as the respondents). The issue in controversy is the rejection of the petitioners' application for amendment of the prayer clause (b). Therefore, it is necessary to know exactly, at the outset, the case set up by the petitioners, as plaintiffs.