IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 60 OF 2011 SHRI ALBERT PANGO ... Petitioner Versus SHRI ANTHONY PANGO AND 7 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. R. G. Ramani, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. C.A. Coutinho,advocate for respondent nos.4 to 8. None for respondent no.1 and 2. Mr. S.R. Madkaikar holding for advocate M. Pereira for respondent no.3. Coram:- A. P. LAVANDE, J. Date:- 2nd May, 2011 P.C: Heard Mr. Ramani, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Madkaikar, learned counsel for respondent no.3 and Mr. Coutinho, learned counsel for respondent nos.4 to 8. 2. None appears on behalf of respondent nos.1 and 2. 3. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner who is the original plaintiff in Regular Civil Suit no.66/09/D before the Civil Judge, Junior Divn. Margao has challenged order dated 20/8/2010 by which application dated 3/5/2010 filed by the respondents nos.4 to 8 has been allowed. 4. Mr. Coutinho, learned counsel for respondents nos. 4 to 8 states that he is not pressing the application dated 3/5/2010 filed by the respondents for intervention in Regular Civil Suit no.66/09/D. 5. In view of the statement made, the impugned order dated 20/8/2010 is quashed and set aside. Th plaintiff shall carry out necessary consequential amendment in the plaint within a period of six weeks. Needless to mention that in view of the above order, the Trial Court shall proceed with the suit in the absence of the respondent nos.4 to 8 and decide the suit in accordance with law. 6. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. A. P. LAVANDE, J. ap/-