IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 21 OF 2008 JACKIE PEREIRA ALIAS JAOQUIM PEREIRA AND 5 ORS., ... Petitioners Versus ANA ARTEMISIA TELES E MENDONCA AND 2 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. M. B. Da Costa, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. M. S. Joshi, Advocate for the respondents no.1 and 2. Coram:- R. C. CHAVAN, J. Date:- 11th August, 2008 P.C. By this petition, the original defendant in Regular Civil Suit No.101/2005/C before the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Panaji takes exception to the order passed by the learned Civil Judge declining the petitioner's request for decreeing the suit in terms of compromise at Exh.P-3 dated 9.12.2005. By this application dated 9.12.2005, the parties had agreed that a Surveyor should be appointed as a Commissioner to prepare a plan of the house as it existed. Upon such plan being prepared and filed in the Court, the defendant was to be restrained from constructing anything beyond the plinth which would be shown in the plan prepared by the surveyor and was to remove all the construction material from the property within 30 days from the order on the Commissioner's report. In the last paragraph of the application it was agreed that thereupon the suit to be disposed off in terms of paragraphs 2 and 3 of the application. Accordingly, a surveyor was appointed as a Commissioner. Upon his report having been found unsatisfactory, another surveyor was appointed. He also submitted his report on 15.06.2006. The plaintiff raised objection contending that the Surveyor had not gone to the root of the matter as the structure of the defendants which was to be protected was to be over the plinth area. In view of this the learned Civil Judge rejected the application for passing decree in terms of the prayer. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. It cannot be said that the parties had bound themselves to a decree in terms of the commissioner's report. The application dated 9.12.2005 itself shows that the surveyor was to be appointed and the Court was to dispose off the suit in terms of paragraphs 2 and 3 after the report of the surveyor was received. Now since the surveyor was to be appointed as a commissioner, the parties had the right to object to the commissioner's report. In fact, when the objections were raised another commissioner was appointed. Learned counsel for the petitioner was right in saying that the plaintiff had changed his mind subsequently. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was any compromise in terms of which suit could be decreed. The order passed by the learned Civil Judge does not call for any interference. The petition stands dismissed. R. C. CHAVAN, J. lh/.