IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 62 OF 2008 THE COMMUNIDADE OF BORDEM THROUGH ATTORNEY TUKARAM NARU PAL ... Petitioner Versus SHRI. SAUNLO VITHAL PAL AND ANR., ... Respondents Mr. Amrut Kansar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Coram:- N. A. BRITTO, J. Date:- 1st February, 2008 ORAL ORDER: Heard Shri Kansar, the learned Counsel on behalf of the petitioner. For the view being taken, notice to respondents is dispensed with. 2. The petitioner, who is the defendant no.2 in RCS no. 51/1997/C has been resisting the summoning of Tukaram Naru Pal as a witness of the plaintiff. The said Tukaram has the attorney of defendant no.2 when the written statement was filed, on behalf of respondent no.2. The said written statement was signed by him as attorney of defendant no.2. He also happened to be the attorney at the time when the plaintiff made the application dated 20/11/2007. He has been resisting being examined as a witness of the plaintiff on the ground that he being an adversary party could not be summoned to give evidence for the plaintiff. This contention of defendant no.2 does not appear to have been considered by the learned trial Court in its order dated 4/12/2007. Order dated 31/03/2004 proceeded on the assumption that he was the ex-attorney, and, it has been stated by learned Advocate Shri Kansar that even at that time he was also the attorney, though was referred to, by the plaintiff as ex-attorney. Needless to observe, the learned trial Judge will have to decide the plea raised by him after hearing both the parties. 3. The order dated 4/12/2007 is set aside. Petition is allowed. The learned trial Court is directed to decide the contention raised by the Petitioner/ defendant no.2 in the light of the observations made herein above. N. A. BRITTO, J. NH