1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 390 OF 2003 Mrs. Gemma Martins, 8, Usha Kiran, 2nd Pasta Lane, Colaba. .... Petitioner V/s 1. Mr. Ganesh Bhiku Harmalkar, Resident of House No. 412, Santar Bhat, Piedade Ilhas Goa. 2. Mr. Armando F. Botelho De Oliveira (dec.) ....Respondents Mr. Rohit Bras De Sa, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. S.D. Lotlikar, Senior Advocate with Ms. G. Xettigar, Advocate for the Respondents. CORAM : N.A. BRITTO, J. DATE : 20th MARCH, 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT : At the request of Shri Rohit Bras De Sa on behalf of the petitioner, the name of respondent no.2 is deleted, at his own risk. 2. Heard learned Counsel on behalf of both the parties. By this Writ Petition, the petitioner challenges the ex-parte judgment of the Mamlatdar dated 28/11/2000 and certificate of purchase in respect of some of the property. It appears that the proceedings before the Mamalatdar were filed against unknown legal representatives of late Ms. Maria Botelho Oliveira, who according to the petitioner was dead when the said proceedings were 2 filed, and Shri Armando F. Botelho De Oliveira, as regards whom, the petitioner is unable to make any statement whether he was living or dead when the said proceedings were filed. The petitioner claims that she has acquired the properties, the subject matter of the said proceedings, by virtue of inventory proceedings bearing no. 119/1995 held upon the death of the said Ms. Maria Botelho Oliveira. The petitioner claims that the said Ms. Maria Botelho Oliveira is her paternal aunt but there is not even a single statement in the petition as to when the said Ms. Maria Botelho Oliveira died and whether upon her death the petitioner had acquired any share in the subject properties. This petition has also been filed against the said Armando F. Botelho De Oliveira showing him as deceased, following the same vice which was followed before the Mamlatdar, without showing his legal representatives, and, after this defect was pointed out today to the petitioner, his name has been deleted by the petitioner. 3. The ex-parte judgment dated 28/11/2000 has been challenged by the petitioner based on the judgment of this Court i.e. Donald Gonsalves V/s. Penha de Franca Youth Club (2002 (3) All MR 815). It is also submitted that it was obtained by fraud and further submission is made, relying on A.V. Papayya Sastry & Ors. V/s. Govt. of A.P. & Ors. (2007 (4) SCC 221) that fraud could be challenged even in a writ petition. 3 4. There is no doubt that the petition was admitted at one stage, but, considering that the petitioner has not disclosed all the facts, I am not inclined to entertain this petition. The petition has been filed in a most causal manner. The petitioner has not even disclosed as to when either of the said Ms. Maria Botelho Oliveira or Armando F. Botelho De Oliveira died or whether she had inherited any of the properties, upon their deaths. The petitioner, became successful bidder on 4/07/2003. According to her, prior to that the impugned orders were obtained by the respondents. There is not even a averment in the petition to the effect that the petitioner has been allotted the said properties and she has become owner of the same. No allotment order is filed. The approach is all casual. Considering the said approach and also considering that the orders themselves are not binding on the petitioner and as the petitioner has more than one alternate and efficacious remedy, I am not inclined to entertain the petition. Hence, dismissed. N.A. BRITTO, J. NH/-