Case Details

CNR NO.GASG01-001846-2017 Exh.44 Special Civil Suit (commercial) no.26/2017 page 1 of 4 O R D E R (below exhibit 44) (Delivered on this the 13th day of the month of August of the year 2018). 1. Perused this application, the reply, the records and heard arguments. 2. The plaintiff has objected to this application on the grounds that (i) it is not maintainable as it does not come within the meaning of the amended provisions of the CPC; (ii) the application does not make out any ground for the purpose of amending the written statement; (iii) though it is stated that the amendment is necessary in the light of certain documents, the documents are not specified; (iv) there is no ground or sufficient cause shown; and (v) the purpose of the application is to only defeat the orders dated 06.10.2016 passed by this Court directing the defendants to answer certain queries raised by the plaintiff under Order XI Rules 1 and 2 CPC. 3. Ld. Adv. Ms. D'Costa, arguing on behalf of the defendant nos.6 and 7, has submitted that the evidence in this case has not started and the proposed amendment does not in any manner change the nature of the suit and therefore, the same be granted. CNR NO.GASG01-001846-2017 Exh.44 Special Civil Suit (commercial) no.26/2017 page 2 of 4 4. As against this, Ld. Adv. Shri F. Rebello, arguing on behalf of the plaintiff, has submitted that it has been the case of the defendants that upon the death of Mr. Francisco Simon Cabral, who was one of the earlier Directors of the defendant no.9, the defendant nos.6 and 7 were inducted into the Company as new Directors and that by the present application, the defendant nos.6 and 7 are trying to change that stand. 5. The learned advocate submits that because of such a case pleaded by the defendant nos.6 and 7, the plaintiff filed an application under Order XI Rules 1 and 2 CPC requiring better particulars from the defendant nos.6 and 7 as to (i) when the defendant nos.6 and 7 were appointed as Directors of the defendant no.9; (ii) who appointed them as Directors of the defendant no.9; and (iii) how they were appointed as Directors of the defendant no.9 and that by an order dated 06.10.2016, my Ld. Predecessor had ordered the defendant nos.6 and 7 to answer the interrogatories but, by the present application, the defendant nos.6 and 7 are seeking to undo the said order of my Ld. Predecessor. 6. Ld. Adv. Shri F. Rebello submits that the defendant no.6 has verified the written statement stating that the contents thereof were true and correct to his own knowledge while the proposed amendments are sought on the basis of records, which are not specified and therefore, the application should not be granted. CNR NO.GASG01-001846-2017 Exh.44 Special Civil Suit (commercial) no.26/2017 page 3 of 4 7. It is further the contention of Ld. Adv. Shri F. Rebello that the amendment cannot be allowed as there is neither mistake nor inadvertence averred by the plaintiff. 8. Order VI Rule 17 CPC lays down that the Court may, at any stage of the proceedings, allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. The proviso lays down that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that inspite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. 9. Admittedly, the trial in this case has not commenced and therefore, the bar envisaged by the proviso is not applicable to this case. 10. From a perusal of the written statement of the defendant nos.6 and 7 vis a vis the proposed amendment, it is obvious that the defendant nos.6 and 7 are trying to correct the error which has got in their written statement and therefore, I am of the considered view that the amendment is necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties. CNR NO.GASG01-001846-2017 Exh.44 Special Civil Suit (commercial) no.26/2017 page 4 of 4 11. Order XI Rule 1 lays down that in any suit, the plaintiff or defendant, by the leave of the Court, may deliver interrogatories in writing for the examination of the opposite parties or any one or more of such parties. The purpose of interrogatories are for the opposite party to meet, and seek clarifications as regards to the case of the other side. 12. In the case at hand, the plaintiff had prayed in its application under Order XI Rules 1 and 2 that the interrogatories were required for the purpose of suit. I have already referred to the interrogatories that were sought for. By the present amendment, the defendant nos.6 and 7 are trying to meet the said interrogatories in their written statement and therefore, merely because there was an order passed by the Court directing the defendant nos.6 and 7 to answer the interrogatories would not allow this Court to dismiss this application for amendment. 13. Hence application is hereby granted. The defendant nos.6 and 7 to carry out the amendment to their written statement within a period of six days. Margao Dated:13.08.2018 ( Edgar P. Fernandes ) District Judge-1 South Goa, Margao. Cg/-