IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 18 OF 2010 MR. FRANCIS MENEZES ... Petitioner Versus MR. MANOHAR KRISHNA TAMBA ... Respondent Mr. J. P. Mulgaonkar, Advocate for the petitioner. Coram:- A. P. LAVANDE, J. Date:- 27th September, 2010 P.C. Heard Mr. J. Mulgaonkar, learned Counsel for the petitioner. By this Revision Application, the petitioner challenges the order dated 20/4/2010 passed by the Principal District Judge, North Goa, Panaji in Civil Miscellaneous Application no. 90/2009 rejecting the application filed by the Petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C. 2. The respondent filed an application under section 269(5) of the City of Panaji Corporation Act, 2002 against the petitioner on the allegation that the petitioner herein had carried out illegal construction. The petitioner herein filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C. which has been dismissed by impugned Order. Having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and having perused the record, I find that there is no jurisdictional error committed by the learned Judge while passing the impugned Order. Needless to mention that the petitioner is free to satisfy the Court that the constructions carried out by him are legal and in accordance with the approved plan. All the contentions of the petitioner are kept open. The petition stands disposed of. A. P. LAVANDE, J. vn