1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA Writ Petition No.852 of 2010 Shri Heriberto Francisco Maria D'Cunha alias Heriberto D'Cunha, Bachelor, s/o Joaquim A.M.R.D D'Cunha, landlord, resident of H.No.363, Ankur Luis Ward, Carmona, Salcete-Goa, since deceased through his Legal representatives: 1 a. Josce Luis, alias Josce Domenio Luis, Advocate, resident of H.No.363, Ankur Luis Ward, Carmona, Salcete – Goa. 1b. Niceta Luis Linhares, alias Niceta Luis e Linhares, resident of H.No.363, Ankur Luis Ward, Carmona, Salcete – Goa. 1c. Eufrida Luis, resident of H.No.363, Ankur Luis Ward, Carmona, Salcete – Goa. … Petitioners Nos. 1(b) and ( c) by their (Orig. Plaintiffs) constituted attorney, the petitioner no.1(a) V e r s u s 2 1. Shri Victor Luis Monteiro, son of Joaquim Monteiro, aged about 38 years, bachelor, businessman, resident of H. No.70, Cuelim, Cansaulim, Goa. 2. Shri Francisco Alberto Lourenco D'Cunha, bachelor, landlord, resident of H.No.40, Costa Ward, Cuelim, Cansaulim, Goa. 3. M/s. Sociedade de Fomento Industrial Ltd., A Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 having registered office at Erasmo Carvalho Street, Margao, Goa. 4. Smt. Ida Berta dos Remedios Cunha e Gomes, Resident of H.No.207, Ultimo Part Ward, Villa Gomes, Calata, Post Office Majorda (since deceased by her legal representatives nos. 5 & 6 below) 5. William Gomes and his wife 6. Smt. Zaria Dias Gomes, both residents of Gomes Bldg., 3 First floor, Dr. D.N. Shah J.S.S Road, Chira Bazaar, Mumbai 400 002. 7. Smt. Julia Francisco R. Cunha Costa, and her husband 8. Shri Ramiro Abreu Costa both residents of Opposite Roof top Hotel, Maddel, Margao – Goa Respondents nos. 9 to 16 shown in the cause title of the impugned order have been dropped in view of order dated 14/2/2008 passed in WP no.46/2008 …. Respondents (Orig. Defendants) Mr. A.F. Diniz, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mrs. A. Agni, Advocate for Respondent no.1 Ms. Amira Razaq, Advocate for Respondent no.3. Mr. V.P. Thali, Advocate for Respondent nos.5 and 6. Mr. Iftikhar Agha, Advocate for Respondent nos.2,7 and 8. Coram: A. P. Lavande, J. Dated: 9th March, 2011. JUDGMENT: Leave to delete Article 226 from the cause title. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. 4 Heard Mr. Diniz, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mrs. Agni, learned counsel for respondent no.1, Mr. Thali, learned counsel for respondent nos. 5 and 6, Ms. Razaq, learned counsel for respondent no.3 and Mr, Agha, learned counsel for respondent nos.2, 7 and 8. 2. Rule. By consent, heard forthwith. 3. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged order dated 4/12/2010 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division at Vasco in Special Civil Suit No.65/97/B by which application dated 20/10/2010 filed by respondent no.3 herein under Order XIV Rule 5 of C.P.C for framing of three additional issues has been allowed. 4. Mr. Diniz, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the application dated 20/10/2010 5 for framing additional issues filed by defendant no.3 in the suit was opposed by the petitioners who are the plaintiffs in the said suit. Mr. Diniz further submitted that both the parties filed written submissions and the parties were also heard orally on the said application. Mr. Diniz further submitted that perusal of the impugned order discloses that the learned Judge in the impugned order from paragraphs 5 to 29 has copied paragraphs 1 to 25 of the written arguments filed on behalf of the defendant no.3. Mr. Diniz further submitted that the learned Trial Judge has not taken into consideration the objections raised orally by the petitioners/plaintiffs as well as in written arguments. 5. Ms. Razak, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.3 submitted that the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable in as much as the petitioners have not shown any perversity in the findings recorded by the Trial Court in the 6 impugned order. According to Ms. Razak, no fault can be found with the impugned order in as much as the three additional issues framed arise in view of the pleadings of the parties. Ms. Razak, therefore, submitted that no case is made out for interference with the impugned order. 6. Mrs. Agni, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.1, Mr. Thali, learned counsel for respondent nos.5 and 6, and Mr. Agha, learned counsel for respondent nos. 7 and 8 supported the submissions made by Ms. Razak. 7. Having considered the rival submissions and having perused the record, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order is liable to be set aside on a very short ground. 8. Perusal of the record discloses that paragraphs 7 5 to 29 of the impugned order are nothing but verbatim reproduction of the written submissions filed by the defendant no.3. There is absolutely no reason given by the learned Trial Judge as to why he does not find any merit in the objections taken on behalf of the plaintiffs for framing of the additional issues as stated by defendant no.3. Indisputably, the plaintiffs and the defendant no.3 had not only filed written arguments but also addressed oral arguments and it was absolutely necessary for the Trial Court to deal with the submissions made on behalf of the plaintiffs while considering the application filed by defendant no.3 for framing additional issues. 9. While passing an order in a civil suit the Court is bound to consider the rival submissions and record a finding after giving reasons therefore. The necessity for giving reasons need not be overstated. In the impugned order, except for reproducing the written submissions 8 submitted on behalf of defendant no.3, the learned Trial Judge has not even referred to the submissions made on behalf of the plaintiffs. On this ground alone, I am of the considered opinion that this is a fit case in which this Court should exercise supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. No doubt, the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is limited to ensure that the Subordinate Courts and Tribunals act within the limits of its authority. At the same time when an order which is without any reason comes to the notice of this Court, it is for this Court to exercise said jurisdiction in as much as ordinarily it is not for this Court to appreciate the rival submissions and give finding on merits for the first time. The Trial Court was bound to consider the rival submissions and pass an order giving reasons in support of the same. This exercise has not been undertaken by the Trial Court. 9 10. For the reasons aforesaid, the impugned order is quashed and set aside and the learned Trial Judge is directed to decide the application dated 20/10/2010 after giving an opportunity of being heard to the parties. The Trial Judge shall decide the application on its own merits without being influenced by any observations made herein and in accordance with law. 11. It is made clear that I have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the rival claims. 12. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. A. P. Lavande, J. Ap/-