1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.958 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO.183 OF 2006 AND MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.959 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO.175 OF 2006 MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.958 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO.183 OF 2006 E.D.C. Limited,Panaji, Goa .. Petitioner. Versus 1. Dilip Nuno Shirodkar and Others .. Respondents Mr. N. Vaze, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. M.S. Usgaonkar, Senior Advocate with Mr. I. Aga,Advocate for the respondents. WITH MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.959 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO.175 OF 2006 E.D.C. Limited,Panaji, Goa .. Petitioner. Versus 1. Mrs. Pramodini Dilip Shirodkar and Ors. .. Respondents Mr. N. Vaze, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. M.S. Usgaonkar, Senior Advocate with Mr. I. Aga,Advocate for the respondents. Coram :- A. P. Lavande, J. Date : - 15 th July, 2009. 2 ORAL ORDER : 1. These two applications are being disposed of by common order since the issue involved in both the applications is common. 2. By these applications, the applicant, who is the petitioner in both the petitions, seeks permission to inspect the suit premises and the mortgaged property as well as hypothecated plant and machinery. There is no dispute that the property and plant machinery mentioned in Exh.F is mortgaged/ hypothecated to the applicant as is evident from the order dated 27.09.2007 passed by this Court in both the writ petitions. 3. The prayer for inspection has been opposed by Mr. Usgaonkar, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents. Mr. Usgaonkar invited my attention to the replies filed on behalf of the respondents more particularly paras 6,7,16 and 17 and submitted that in terms of the Deed of Mortgage/Hypothecation, the respondents are entitled to expand their existing activities and also install plant and machinery, furniture, stocks and materials etc. in the said premises. According to Mr. Usgaonkar, the respondents have not acquired any new plant and machinery and, therefore, the applicant is not entitled to inspect the suit premises. 4. Having heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and the respondents, I find no merit in the submission of 3 Mr.Usgaonkar. Admittedly, there is no dispute that the property and the plant and machinery mentioned in Exhibit F are mortgaged/ hypothecated to the applicant and as such they are entitled to inspection. What is going to be the outcome of the inspection is different matter which cannot be gone into at this stage. Therefore, I allow both the applications in terms of prayer clause (a). 5. The applicant shall give notice in writing to the respondents stating the time and date on which they want to carry out the inspection and the respondents shall permit the applicant to inspect. Both the applications stand disposed of. A. P. LAVANDE, J. SMA