IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA *** WRIT PETITION NO. 69 OF 2003 1. Shri Kusta Bhisoo Gaonkar, of major age, occupation Agriculture, r/o Borcottem- Collem, Taluka Sanguem, Goa, represented herein by his duly Constituted Attorney Shri Govind Kusta Gaonkar, 2. Shri Arjun Budho Gaonkar, of major age, occupation Agriculture, r/o Borcottem- Collem, Taluka Sanguem, Goa. ...Petitioners Versus 1. Shri Rudresh Sadassiva Prabhu, age 23 years, r/o Nirancal road, Ponda, Goa, 2. Shri Valiyakunnathu Mohammad Ismail Rashid, represented by defendant no.10, Shri T.S.M. Basheer, r/o Borcottem- Collem, Sanguem, Goa, 3. Shri Valiyakunnathu Mohammad Ismail Rashid, represented by defendant n.10, Shri T.S.M. Basheer, r/o Borcottem-Collem, Sanguem, Goa, 4. Smt. Taddiekaparampil Sayyed Mohammed Fatima Baani, represented by defendant no.10, Shri T.S.M. Basheer, r/o Borcottem-Collem, Sanguem, Goa, 5. Smt. Ettupankil Mohammed Khan Saleema, represented by Defendant no.10, Shri T.S.M. Basheer, r/o Borcottem, Collem, Sanguem, Goa, 6. Smt. Maliakal Maideen Kannu Laila, represented by Defendant no.10, Shri T.S.M. Basheer, r/o Borcottem, Collem, Sanguem, Goa, 7. Shri Valiyakunnathu Mohammed Ismail Safar, represented by Defendant no.10, Shri T.S.M. Basheer, r/o Borcottem, Collem, - 2 - Sanguem, Goa, 8. Dr. P. S. Mathew, represented by Defendant no.10, Shri T.S.M. Basheer, r/o Borcottem, Collem, Sanguem, Goa, 9. Shri Thanguthanajil John Mathew, represented by Defendant no.10, Shri T.S.M. Basheer, r/o Borcottem, Collem, Sangue, Goa, 10.Thadickapanrampil Sayyad Mohammad Bashir, represented Defendant no.10, Shri T.S.M. Basheer, r/o Borcottem, Collem, Sanguem, Goa, 11.Shri Kalarickal Ibrahim Taejurnissa, represented by Defendant No.10, Shri T.S.M. Basheer, r/o Borcottem, Collem, Sanguem, Goa, 12.Smt. Saramma John, represented by Defendant No.10, Shri T.S.M. Basheer, r/o Borcottem, Collem, Sanguem, Goa, 13.Shri Mathew Kurieyan, represented by Defendant no.10, Shri T.S.M. Bahseer, r/o Borcottem, Collem, Sanguem, Goa, 14.Smt. Anna Mathew, represented by Defendant No.10, Shri T.S.M. Basheer, r/o Borcottem, Collem, Sanguem, Goa, 15.Shri LagiKashy Eapen, represented by Defendant No.10, Shri T.S.M. Basheer, r/o Borcottem, Collem, Sanguem, Goa, 16.Smt. Kunjanama Eapen, represented by Defendant No.10, Shri T.S.M. Basheer, r/o Borcottem, Collem, Sanguem, Goa, 17.Smt. Betty Kuriegan, represented by Defendant No.10, Shri T.S.M. Basheer, r/o - 3 - Borcottem, Collem, Sanguem, Goa, 18.Shri Abey Abraham Eapen, represented by Defendant No.10, Shri T.S.M. Basheer, r/o Borcottem, Collem, Sanguem, Goa, 19.Smt. Ramavatibai Nagesh Shet Parkar, wife of Nagesh Babai Shet Parkar, age 57 years, housewife, r/o Durgabhat, Ponda, Goa, 20.Shri Balikant Naguesh Parkar, (since expired) represented by his legal heirs, i.e. Defendant No.20A and Defendant No.21, 20.A.Kum. Darshan Balikant Parkar, r/o Durgabhat, Ponda, Goa, 21.Shrimati Balikant Parkar, of major age, r/o Durgabhat, Ponda, Goa, 22.Shri Bhawanidas Nagesh Parkar, of major age, r/o Durgabhat, Ponda, Goa, 23.Shri Vijayaram Nagesh Parkar, of major age, r/o Durgabhat, Ponda, Goa, 24.Smt. Vijayaram Parkar, of major age, r/o Durgabhat, Ponda, Goa, 25.Smt. Devi Chandrakant Sawant, of major age, r/o Durgabhat, Ponda, Goa, 26.Shri Chandrakant Sawant, of major age, r/o Durgabhat, Ponda, Goa, 27.Smt. Mali Naguesh Parkar, of major age, r/o Durgabhat, Ponda, Goa, 28.Shri Shree Parkar, of major age, r/o Durgabhat, Ponda, Goa, 29.Smt. Vanita Naguesh Parkar, of major age, r/o Durgabhat - 4 - of Ponda Taluka, Goa, 30.Smt. Parvati Shankar Aenkar, of major age, occupation - housewife, r/o Navawada, Collem, Goa, 31.Shri Shankar Aenkar, of major age, occupation agriculture, r/o Navawada, Collem, Goa, and 32.M/s Sociedade de Fomento Industrial Ltd., a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956, having its office at Margao, Goa. ...Respondents. Shri S. N. Joshi, advocate for the petitioners. Shri Sudesh Usgaokar, advocate for respondent no.32. CORAM : F. I. REBELLO, J. DATE : 26th June, 2003. ORAL ORDER Heard learned counsel for the parties. The challenge is to the Order of the trial Court dated 15th January, 2003, whereby the trial Court has rejected the application by the petitioners herein for inspection of documents from plaintiff no.1. 2. The case of the plaintiffs is for injunction and cancellation of sale deeds. The plaintiffs/petitioners herein claim to be the owners of the land. If that be the case it is the plaintiffs who will have to prove that the suit land which according to them the respondents have encroached upon, belonged to them. Once that be the case, whatever documents the respondents have in their favour would be inconsequential. If the respondents are seeking to - 5 - rely on any documents, that would be subject to the rules regarding production of documents. In the light of that I do not find that this is a fit case for this Court to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court. In the light of that the Writ Petition is rejected. F. I. REBELLO, J. mc.