M/S. Souza Estate Developers Rep. By Its Partner Shri Luis Domingos De Menezes Roque De Souza And 3 v. Mrs. Irene Barbosa Rep By Her Attorney Smt. Alethea Barbosa And ANR.,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

WRIT PETITION NO.636 OF 2014 1.

M/s. Souza Estate Developers, a Partnership Firm, registered under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 having its Registered Office at 1 st Floor, Church View Building, Fr. Agnelo Road, Altinho, Panaji, Goa, represented by its Partner Shri Luis Domingos De Menezes Roque De Souza alia Luis De Souza, duly constituted Attorney of other Partner vide Power of Attorney dated 10.11.1998.

Shri Luis Domingos De Menezes Roque De Souza alias Luis De Souza, major, r/o Altinho, Panaji, Goa.

Lucia Maria De Souza, 4.

Alice Maria Menezes Roque De Souza, through their constituted Attorney Shri Luiz Domingos De Menezes Roque De Souza alias Luis De Souza, r/o Altinho, Panaji, Goa.

..... Petitioners

Versus

1.

Mrs. Irene Barbosa, major, married r/o 2/3 Beach Nest,

Miramar, Panaji, Goa, represented by her Attorney, Smt. Alethea Barbosa, r/o 2/3 Beach Nest, Miramar, Panaji, Goa.

Mrs. Althea Barbosa, Daughter of Irene Pereira Barbosa, and also her constituted attorney, both residing at 2/3 Beach Nest, Miramar, Panaji, Goa.

Shri Francisco Thomas Gonsalves, through his Attorney Luis De Souza, Altinho, Panaji, Goa, who is petitioner no. 2.

....Respondents.

Mr. J. J. Mulgaonkar, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. A. A. Agni, Senior Advocate with Ms. Kalpa Govekar, Advocate for the Respondents.

CORAM: N. M. JAMDAR, J.

DATE: 18 FEBRUARY, 2015.

ORAL ORDER:

By this petition, the petitioners challenge the order dated 9 September, 2014 passed by the learned Civil Judge Junior Division "C" Court, Panaji, rejecting the application made by the petitioners to produce certain additional documents.

The petitioners have filed a suit praying for relief of injunction against the respondents. The respondent filed written statement and contested the claim of the respondent. The petitioner moved an application for producing certain sale deeds on record by application dated 6 September, 2014. The learned civil judge, in the impugned order, came to the conclusion that the documents sought to be produced are of the eastern side of the property and have no connection with the western side that is the subject matter of the suit. Mr. J. P. Mulgaonkar, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that unless the documents in respect of the entire property are looked at it will not be possible to determine the exact location of the properties in question. Mrs. A. A. Agni, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents submitted that the learned Judge was right in holding that the documents are not relevant.

4.

If the application made by the petitioner before the learned civil judge is perused it discloses no ground regarding relevancy of the documents. The application only states that the documents are public documents which are necessary for adjudication, and no prejudice will be caused to the respondent. The learned civil judge therefore cannot be faulted for coming to the conclusion that the documents are not necessary as there are no pleadings whatsoever regarding the relevancy of the documents.

5.

However, considering the averments made in the petition and the argument advanced before me, I am of the opinion that the case of the petitioners should not be completely shut out. There does appear to be reference to the larger property in the plaint. The argument advanced is that the sale deed of the entire property will be material to determine where exactly the suit property lies. Therefore, even though I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order, I am inclined to observe that if the petitioner files an application giving particulars of the relevancy of the documents, then the learned civil judge may consider the same.

6.

This is not to state that any observation is made on the merits of the petitioner's claim but such indulgence is granted only to ensure that injustice is not caused to the litigant because care to aver sufficient pleadings is not taken in the application. However, the learned Civil Judge will consider the application only if it is filed within two weeks from today and that too on is own merits.

No further orders are required to be passed. The petition is accordingly disposed of.

N. M. JAMDAR, J.

Ap/-