- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA. WRIT PETITION NO. 242 OF 2011. Shri Deepak alis Vaikunth V. Parab Gaonkar, 43 years of age, Resident of H. No. 96, Gaonkarwada, Bicholim, Goa. …....... Petitioner. Versus The Municipal Council of Bicholim, a Corporate Body, represented by its Chief Officer, Bicholim Goa. …....... Respondent. Mr. Sarvesh Kamat Malyekar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S. D. Padiyar, Advocate for the respondent. CORAM :- A. P. LAVANDE, J. DATE : 5 th May, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Malyekar, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Padiyar, learned Advocate for the respondent. - 2 - 2. Rule. By consent heard forthwith. 3. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges two orders dated 30.3.2011 and 6.4.2011 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, “C” Court Bicholim in Regular Civil Suit No.78/1998/C, by which the petitioner/defendant has been called upon to pay costs of Rs. 3000/- and further evidence of the petitioner who is defendant in the above suit has been closed. 4. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the considered opinion that the interest of justice would be served by permitting the petitioner to pay costs of Rs.2000/- to be paid to the witnesses who were to be examined on 30.3.2011. By the impugned Order dated 30.3.2011 the trial Court has directed payment of Rs.1,000/- to the petitioner himself ( instead of respondent which appears to be an inadvertent error). Mr. Kamat Malyekar, for the petitioner states that the costs of Rs.2,000/- will be paid to the plaintiff on 9.5.2011 when the matter is fixed before the trial Court. The statement is accepted. Subject to - 3 - payment of costs of Rs.2000/- by the petitioner, the defendant/petitioner is permitted to lead evidence in the above suit. 5. In view of the above, impugned orders dated 30.3.2011 and 6.4.2011 passed by the trial Court are quashed and set aside subject to the condition mentioned above. The respondent is permitted to examine the two witnesses in terms of the direction given by this Court and the petitioner/defendant is also permitted to lead evidence in the matter subject to keeping the witnesses ready for examination. 6. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. A. P. LAVANDE, J. vn*