1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO.835 OF 2010 1. Mr. Anthony lobo, 64 years, retired, resident of H.No.485/1, Cottarbhat, Aldona, Bardez-Goa. 2. Mrs. Bertha Lobo, Major, in service, resident of H.No.485/1, Cottarbhat, Aldona, Bardez-Goa. (represented herein by her constituted attorney Mr. Anthony Lobo, the petitioner no.1 hereinabove.) .. Petitioners v e r s u s Mr. Raju D'Souza, Major, resident of MIG Building, Flat No.6, First Floor, Housing Board, Near Sanjay School, Porvorim, Bardez-Goa presently residing at 'H' Block No.103, Devashree Apartments, Porvorim, Bardez, Goa. .. Respondents Mr. A. D. Bhobe, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. G. Teles, Advocate for the respondent. CORAM : A. P. LAVANDE, J. DATE : 23 rd February, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Bhobe, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Teles, learned Counsel for the respondent. 2 2. Rule. By consent heard forthwith. 3. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners challenge the order dated 1st October, 2010 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mapusa in Regular Civil Suit No.65/2007/A rejecting the application dated 13th November, 2009 purportedly filed under Order XV-A of C.P.C. 4. The petitioners are the plaintiffs and the respondent is the defendant in the above suit. 5. The plaintiffs filed the above suit seeking recovery of possession of the suit premises and for compensation. In the said suit, the plaintiffs filed an application dated 13th November, 2009 seeking direction to the defendants to deposit the arrears of licence fees amounting to Rs.7850/- as well as an amount of Rs.10,47,000/- and further to deposit the sum of Rs.1,000/- per day. The learned Judge, on the said application passed the following order : “Perused the record and considered the same. In order to grant the application nothing is placed on record in support of the application. Hence the 3 application stands rejected.” 6. Bare perusal of the impugned order discloses that the same is non-reasoned order and also discloses total non- application of mind by the learned trial Judge. Once an application under Order XV-A of C.P.C. was filed by the applicant, it was obligatory for the trial Court to consider the same in the light of the written statement and counterclaim filed by the defendants and documents placed on record. This exercise has admittedly not been done by the trial Court. On this ground alone, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 7. In view of the above, the order dated 1st October, 2010 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mapusa is quashed and set aside. The trial Judge to decide the application dated 13th November, 2009 after giving opportunity of being heard to the defendant in accordance with law expeditiously and in any case on or before 30th April, 2011. 8. Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms with no order as to costs. A. P. LAVANDE, J. SMA