1 (Spl. - H.C.A.S. C.D., 78-e) FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA PANAJI – GOA APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO. 308/2004 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Quorum appearances, Court's orders, or directions and Court's or Judge's Orders. Registrar's orders. Mr. J. Godinho, Advocate for the petitioner. CORAM : P.V. HARDAS, J. DATE : AUGUST 26, 2004. P.C. This is a petition by the petitioners who are the original plaintiffs in Regular Civil Suit No.41/97 /D, pending on the file of the Civil Judge, Jr. Division, at Vasco da Gama, Goa. The petitioners are aggrieved by an order of the trial Court, dated 20/03 / 2004, whereby, the trial Judge after recasting issue No.2, has referred the said issue to the Mamlatdar and has recalled its earlier order of referring the issue No.2, as it originally stood. Issue No.2 reads as 2 under : “2) Whether the defendant proves that he along with his brother Khushali Satarkar were/are the agricultural tenants in possession of the suit property ?'' 2. The plaintiffs had filed a suit alleging that the defendants were not the tenants and the defendants, in their written statement, had specifically raised a plea that they were the agricultural tenants. Based on the pleadings, the trial Court had earlier framed Issue No.2 and referred to the Mamlatdar. However, on recasting the issue, the trial Court recalled its earlier order and had referred the said issue No.2, which is referred to above, to the Mamlatdar for decision. It is this order which is impugned in the present petition. 3. Obviously, since issue No.2 has been framed whether the defendants are agricultural tenants, the Civil Court 3 could not decide the said issue as the Civil Court does not have the jurisdiction to decide whether the defendants are the agricultural tenants. The trial Court has rightly adopted the procedure of referring the issue to the Mamlatdar for decision. 4. In view of the above, I do not find any infirmity in the Order passed by the trial Court, warranting interference of this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, this petition, being devoid of any merit, is dismissed with no order as to costs. P.V. HARDAS, J. ssm. 4