1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA FIRST APPEAL NO.69 of 2010 1. Mazania of Temple of Shri Morzai Devi of Morjim with office at Village Morjim, Taluka Pernem, District North Goa, Goa through its Attorney Shri Laxman Sabaji Shetgaonkar, r/o Shirwado,Morjim, Pernem Taluka, Goa. 2. Shri Gopal Ganesh Shetgaonkar major in age, Munang, Morjim, Pernem Taluka, Goa 3. Shri Laxmikant alias Kana Shetgaonkar, major in age, r/o.Munang, Morjim, Pernem Taluka, Goa 4. Shri Satish Sitaram Shetgaonkar, major in age, r/o, Kanchole, Morjim, Pernem Taluka, Goa 5. Shri Sakharam Parab, major in age, Varcha Wada, Morjim, Pernem Taluka, Goa .. Appellants Versus 1. Shri Baburao Vithal Gurov, s/o late Vithal alias Vithu Ramchandra alias Rama Gurov, age47 years, 2. Smt. Hemlata Baburao Gurov, w/o Shri Baburao Gurov, aged 40 years, both r/o H.No. 640/2, Guirim, Bardez-Goa 3. Shri Shriram Vithal Gurov, s/o late Vithu alias Vithal Rama Gurov, aged 45 years, Pujari, 2 4. Smt. Seema Shriram Gurov, w/o Shri Shriram Vithal Gurov, aged 36 years, housewife, both residents of H.No.728, Varcha Wada, Morjim, Pernem Taluka, Goa 5. Shri Sanjay Vithal Gurov, s/o late Vithal alias Vithu Ramchandra alias Rama Gurov aged 43 years, service, 6. Smt. Tanuja Sanjay Gurov, w/o Shri Sanjay Vithal Gurov aged 35 years, housewife, both r/o MPT Quarters, Sada, Vasco-da-Gama, Goa 7. Shri Prakash Vithal alias Vithu Ramchandra alias Rama Gurov, aged 40 years, service, 8. Smt. Chhaya Prakash Gurov, w/o Shri Prakash Vithal Gurov, age 36 years, housewife, Both r/o at Government Quarters, Sada, Vasco-da-Gama, Goa 9. Smt. Shantabai Vithal alias Vithu Gurov, w/o Vithal alias Vithu Ramchandra alias Rama Gurov, aged 65 years, housewife, r/o H.No.728 (old) and 490 (New) Varcha Wada, Morjim, Pernem Taluka, Goa 10. The Mamlatdar/ Administrator Of Mazanias of Pernem Taluka with office at Pernem Town, Pernem Taluka, Goa 11. The Executive Engineer, P.W.D. XIII (Roads), P.W.D., Mapusa-Goa 3 12. The Sarpanch, Village Panchayat of Morjim, with office at Thol, Morjim, Pernem Taluka, Goa. 13. The Communidade of Morjim, Pernem, Goa Through its Attorney with office at morjim, Pernem, Goa 14. The Administrator of Communidades of Bardez, Communidade building, Mapusa, Bardez-Goa. 15. Shri Tulsidas Shetgaonkar, major in age, Varch Wada, Morjim, Pernem Taluka, Goa. .. Respondents. Mr. J. P. Mulgaonkar, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. A. Kansar, Advocate for respondent nos.1 to 9. Mr. Guru Shirodkar, Government Advocate for respondent nos.10 and 11. None for respondent nos.12 to 15, though served. CORAM :- A. P. LAVANDE, J. DATE : 7 th February, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : By consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, the appeal is taken up for final disposal. 2. Heard Mr. Mulgaonkar, learned Counsel for the 4 appellants, Mr. Kansar, learned Counsel for respondent nos.1 to 9 and Mr. Shirodkar, learned Government Advocate for respondent nos.10 and 11. None for respondent nos.12 to 15, though served. 3. During the course of hearing of Civil Application No.80/2010 filed by the appellants, it has been pointed out to me that in the judgment and order passed by the trial Court disposing of the Civil Suit No.42/2005, there is absolutely no marshalling of the evidence led by the parties. By the impugned judgment and decree, the trial Court has partly decreed the suit and injuncted defendant nos.1 and 3 to 7 from disturbing the possession of the plaintiffs of the suit property, house and other structures. Perusal of the impugned judgment and order discloses that the learned trial Judge has not even mentioned the number of witnesses examined by either side nor made any reference to oral and documentary evidence led by the parties. 4. It is axiomatic that the trial Court while disposing of the suit must marshal and analyse the evidence led by both the parties before giving findings on the issues involved in the suit. Indisputably, this exercise has not been undertaken 5 by the trial Court. On this count alone, the impugned judgment and decree is liable to be set aside and is hereby set aside. 5. In view of the above, the impugned judgment and decree is set aside. The trial Court to decide Civil Suit No.42/2005 afresh after giving opportunity of being heard to the parties in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made above. 6. The parties shall appear before the trial Court on 17th March, 2011 at 10.00 a.m. The trial Court shall dispose of the suit expeditiously and in any case on or before 30th June, 2011. A. P. LAVANDE, J. SMA