IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA MISC.CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 242 OF 2009 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 25 OF 2007 SHRI. NARAYAN NAIQUE AND ANR., ... Applicants Versus JULIA RODRIGUES (DECEASED) THROUGH LR'S ... Respondent Shri A. D. Bhobe, Advocate for the Applicants. Shri R. G. Ramani, Advocate for the Respondent. Coram:- N. A. BRITTO, J. Date:- 19th March, 2009 P.C.;- Heard Shri A. D. Bhobe, learned Counsel on behalf of the Applicants/Defendants and Shri R. G. Ramani, learned Counsel on behalf of the Respondents/Plaintiffs. The Second Appeal was disposed off by this Court on 4-3-2009 in the absence of the defendants who then were represented by an advocate who had not withdrawn from the proceedings but chose not to appear before the Court. The contention of the Applicants/Defendants is that the lawyer who was appearing for them had returned the file on 5-2-2009 and as the Applicants were looking out for a lawyer, they were unable to appoint one promptly since the fees quoted by the lawyers were beyond the rich of the Applicants and thereafter they contacted Advocate V. Palekar on 28-2-2009 but the Applicants could not meet the Advocate during the period from 28-2-2009 to 4-3-2009 and they could meet him only on 5-3-2009 after the Applicants recovered from their illness and accordingly the Applicants handed over the files of the case and signed the Vakalatnama on 5-3-2009. The Applicants have further stated that on 6-3-2009 when the Advocate visited the Court for filing the Vakalatnama, the Advocate came to know that the appeal was heard and decided on 4-3-2009. Today, Shri A. D. Bhobe, learned Counsel has appeared on behalf of the Applicants and has reiterated the averments made in the application. The Applicants have chosen not to file any document in support of their sickness nor an affidavit of the previous and the present Advocate in support of the facts stated by them. One need not accept whatever is stated on behalf of the Applicants without further proof in support of the facts stated therein. In case the file was taken away from the previous Advocate, he would have certainly withdrawn the Vakalatnama. Be that as it may, the application cannot also succeed on merits. Admittedly, the Plaintiffs had described the suit premises in para 3 of the plaint and that description was not disputed by the Defendants in para 3 of the written statement. It is true, as pointed out by Shri Bhobe, learned Counsel on behalf of the Applicants that the Applicants' witness had admitted that the suit premises were not attached either to the old house or the new house of the Plaintiffs and therefore the conclusion of the learned first appellate Court that the suit premises could not be properly identified could not be faulted. Shri R. G. Ramani, learned Counsel on behalf of the Plaintiffs/Respondents submits that there were two houses in the said property, one occupied by the Plaintiffs and the other occupied by the Defendants and therefore there could not be any dispute as regards to the suit premises which were occupied by the Defendants. Once the Defendants had admitted the case set out by the Plaintiffs that the suit house was a room to the house of the Plaintiffs on the east where the Plaintiffs were storing coconuts and dry fuel there could never have been any dispute as regards the identity of the suit house occupied by the Defendants. Once that was the position, subsequent slight divergence in the oral evidence of the Plaintiffs could not be accepted to favour the Defendants. That being the position there is no case on merits as well. Application dismissed, with costs. N. A. BRITTO, J. RD.