-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 854 OF 2009 Goa Tourism Development Corporation Ltd., (A Government of Goa Undertaking) represented by its Managing Director, with his office at Trionora Apartments, Dr. Alvares Costa Road, Panaji, Goa. …... Petitioner V e r s u s Shri Nandgopal Kudchadkar, Kudchadkar House, Opp. Telephone House, Marvalem, Curchorem, Goa. …... Respondent Mr.S. D. Lotlikar, Senior Advocate with Mr. P. Lotlikar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. V. A. Lavande, Advocate with Ms. F. Mesquitta, Advocate for the Respondent. CORAM: F. M. REIS, J. DATE : 23 rd December, 2009. ORAL JUDGMENT Heard Shri S. D. Lotlikar, Senior Advocate appearing for the Petitioner. Advocate Lavande waives service on behalf of the Respondent. 2. Rule. -2- 3. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel. 4. The present Petition has been filed challenging the exparte Order granted by the learned Addl. District Judge, North Goa, Panaji, in Civil Appeal no. 3/09, whereby the learned Judge stayed the Order dated 04.12.2009 passed by the Estate Officer. The learned Senior Counsel vehemently argued that the impugned Order is not sustainable in law considering that no conditions have been imposed with regards to the payment of the arrears of rent and compensation which seriously affects the rights of the Petitioner. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the returnable date has been fixed after nearly twenty days from the date the impugned Order has been passed, thereby causing prejudice to the Petitioner. 5. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that there is no infirmity in the impugned Order passed and there were substantial grounds for passing the impugned Order considering that the Appeal which has been preferred by the Respondent is a substantive Appeal under the Act and the Respondent has not been heard by the Estate Officer. 6. Having heard the learned Counsel and without going into the merits of the above Appeal, in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate that the learned Addl. District Judge, North Goa, is directed to dispose of the said Appeal upon putting some terms on the Respondent. The learned Addl. District Judge was not justified to pass the impugned exparte Order without -3- imposing some terms on the Respondent considering that a substantial amount was ordered to be paid by the Respondent to the Petitioner as per the Order of the Estate Officer. 7. As such, the impugned Order dated 17.12.2009 is modified and the said Order dated 04.12.2009 is stayed subject to the Respondent deposits before the learned Addl. District Judge, Panaji, on or before 31.12.2009, a sum of Rs.10,00,000/0 as condition precedent. The said amount shall be subject to the further orders to be passed at the time of the disposal of the Appeal. The learned District Judge, North Goa, Panaji, is directed to dispose of the Appeal bearing no. 3/2009 as expeditiously as possible in any event possibly on or before 31.01.2010. 8. Rule disposed of on the above terms with no Order as to costs. F. M. REIS, J. arp/*