1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 29 OF 2010 Comunidade of Sirsaim, Sirsaim, Bardez, Goa. .. Petitioner. (Ori. plaintiff) Versus Rajaram Bandekar (deceased) through his legal heir, Narayan Bandekar, Nitin Chambers, near LIC Office, Vasco-da-Gama, Goa. .. Respondent (Orig. Defendant.) Mr. P. H. Parab, Advocate for the petitioner. Coram :- A. P. LAVANDE, J. Reserved on : 10 th December, 2010 Pronounced on : 14 th December, 2010 ORDER : Heard Mr. Parab, learned Counsel for the petitioner. 2. By this revision application, the petitioner challenges the order dated 22nd October, 2010 passed by Civil Judge, Junior Division, 'C' Court Bicholim dismissing the application dated 29th September, 2010 filed by the petitioner/ plaintiff for decreeing the suit on the ground that 2 the main issue involved in the suit, has been admitted by the defendant. The petitioner filed the above suit against the respondent seeking declaration that the defendant is not the tenant of the suit property, permanent injunction and order directing Mamlatdar, Record of Rights to delete the name of the defendant from the tenant's column in Form No.I and XIV in Survey No.23/2 of village Sirsai. The suit was contested by the defendant and initially, issues were framed by the trial Court which were recast on 27th July, 2010 and the trial Court has framed 8 issues. 3. The trial Court held that since there is no admission regarding possession of the plaintiff is concerned and since the issues are settled there is scope for enquiry and as such, the suit could not be decreed at this stage. 4. Mr. Parab, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that having regard to the defence taken by the defendant, it is evident that the case of the plaintiff has been admitted and as such, the trial Court ought to have decreed the suit since nothing remains to be proved by the plaintiff in the suit. 5. Having considered the submission made by the 3 learned Counsel for the petitioner and having perused the record, I am of the considered opinion that no case has been made out for interference with the impugned order. The issues have been recast on 27th July, 2010 and as such, unless the evidence is led on the said issues, no decree can be passed in favour of the plaintiff. 6. In view of the above, I do not find any jurisdictional error having been committed by the learned trial Judge. No case has been made out for interference by this Court. Hence, Civil Revision Application is dismissed with no order as to costs. A. P. LAVANDE, J. SMA