1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 509 OF 2009 Mr. Germano Jose Manuel D'Silva, s/o late Emedio D'Silva, and late Ana Quiteria Dias e Silva alias Ana Cristina Dias e Silva, represented by his attorney Shri Soccorianho Fernandes, S/o late Lourecinho Fernandes, r/o H.No.310, Near Cross Road, IV Ward, Colva, Salcete Goa. ... Petitioner V e r s u s 1. Smt. Francisca Eulempia & Ors. Eufermiana Fernandes alias Francisca Eulempia Eufermiana Courto Carvalho alias Mary Fernandes, widow of late Gabriel Andre da Piedade Soter Couto Carvalho alias Gabiel Carvalho, r/o room No. 41, 2nd Floor, BDD Chawl No. 81, Worli, Mumbai. 2. Smt. Antoneta Cecilia Carvalho e Fernandes, r/o H.No. Not known, Virar Agashi, Bariwada Virar, District Thana, Taluka Vassai, Maharashtra, 3. Shri Francis Fernandes, r/o House Number not known Virar Agashi, Bariwada, Virar, District Thana, Taluka Vassai, Maharashtra, at* 2 4. Shri Sabino Jose Francisco Carvalho alias Jose Francis Carvalho, r/o House Number not known, Virar Agashi, Bariwada, Virar, District Thana, Taluka Vassai, Maharashtra. 5. Smt. Stella Delvira Alacacoque Carvalho e Sequeira, r/o Flat No. 204 Vishranati Apartment, Anand Naghar, Vasai, West, Maharashtra. 6. Shri Alex John Sequeira, r/o Flat No.203, Vishranati Apartment, Vassai West, Maharashtra. 7. Shri Jose Carmel Carvalho, r/o Room No.41, 2nd Floor, BDD, Chawl No.81, Worli, Mumbai. 8. Smt. Florinda Carvalho, r/o Room No.41, 2nd Floor, BDD, Chawl No.81, Worli, Mumbai. 9. Shri Salvador D'Cunha and his wife 10.Smt. Milagrinha D'Cunha both r/o House No. 120-E Ilhas de Rachol, Salcete Goa. 11. Smt. Cecilia Pravin Mazrencar, r/o 26/206, Motilal Naghar, No.1 Opp. B.E.S.T. Colony, Goregaum West, Mumbai. at* 3 12.Smt. Libania Fernandes, r/o House Number not known, Jaggar Babar Colony, Mount Mary Hill Road, Bandra West Mumbai. Both respondent nos. 11 and 12, have been deleted by Order dated 11.12.1998. 13.Shri Mariano Fernandes and his wife 14.Smt. Serafina Fernandes both r/o 104-B Roy Mansion, Aram Society Lane, Santa Cruz, East Vacela, Mumbai. ... Respondents Mr. G. Teles, Advocate for the Petitioner. Coram :- A. H. JOSHI, J. Date :-22 nd SEPTEMBER, 2009. ORAL ORDER : 1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. G. Teles for the Petitioner. 2. Petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 7.4.2009 passed by Civil Judge Senior Division, Margao, in Special Civil Suit No. 347/96/III passed below Exhibit H which is application dated 2.4.2009. at* 4 3. By the said application, the defendant had prayed for leave to produce inspection report dated 23.3.2009, drawn by an Engineer. This application was allowed by learned Trial Judge. 4. Present petition is filed for taking exception to this order. The ground which is urged in support is that similar application was filed in 2004 and was rejected by order dated 6.7.2004. 5. It is seen that the plaintiff was permitted to produce and prove the inspection report dated 13.11.2006. This development occurred in the process of trial, which is much after earlier order dated 6.7.2004 was passed by the Trial Court. 6. Perusal of the impugned order discloses that a later development has occurred namely the plaintiff has brought on record an inspection report while leading his evidence. Defendants' right of rebuttal cannot be taken away. In this background the defendant has filed application for production of an inspection report on record on 2.4.2009. This application is allowed by impugned order. at* 5 7. The order dated 7.4.2009 cannot be attacked on the ground of rejection of similar prayer in past as it was inevitable fall out of plaintiff's move. 8. The question of state of suit property or its status and measurements as to dimensions, area etc. of suit property are the matter to be proved by ocular evidence. 9. Particularly when the issue relates to the details which cannot be proved by a layman but it has to be proved by those who have expertise or having special knowledge, it has to be proved and disproved in said manner only. On this sole ground the impugned order is seen to have been passed within the bounds of law and procedure. 10. There is no error of law or relating to jurisdiction creeping in. 11. Petition has no merit and is dismissed. A. H. JOSHI, J. at* at*