1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL APPLICATION NOS.563, 564, 565 AND STAMP APPLICATION NO. 1844 OF 2011. MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL APPLICATION NOS. 563 OF 2011 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 71 OF 2005 AND MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 564 OF 2011 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 72 OF 2005 Sudesh Pandurang Shetye, resident of Post Asnora, Sirigao, Poira, Goa, 403 03. ... Applicant versus Shri Madan W. Chodankar(Expired) rep. by his legal representatives Smt. Medha Chodankar(widow) and others. ... Respondents Shri V. Menezes, Advocate for the Applicant. Shri V. P. Thali, Advocate for the Legal Representatives of Shri Madan W. Chodankar and others. Shri M. B. D'Costa, Senior Advocate for the Legal Representatives of Smt. Laximi N. Daude and others. MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 565 OF 2011 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 288 OF 2004 AND STAMP NUMBER(APPLICATION) NO. 1844 OF 2011. Sudesh Pandurang Shetye, resident of Post Asnora, Sirigao, Poira, Goa, 403 503. 2 versus Smt. Laximi Sinary, resident of Pritam Stores, Housing Bord Colony, Alto Porvorim, Bardez, Goa(expired) (through legal representative of applicant No.1). Pandurang Murari Shetye(dec.) rep. by his legal reps. and others. ... Respondents Shri V. Menezes, Advocate for the Applicants. Shri M. B. D'Costa, Senior Advocate for the Legal Representatives of Smt. Laximi N. Daude and others. CORAM : F. M. REIS, J. DATE : 10TH JUNE, 2011. P.C.:- Heard Shri V. Menezes, learned Counsel for the legal representatives of Smt. Laximi Sinary, Shri V. P. Thali, learned Counsel for the legal representatives of Madan Chodankar and others and Shri M. B. D'Costa, learned Senior Counsel for the legal representatives of Laxmi N. Daude. 2. All the above applications are filed by the Applicants praying, interalia, that they be permitted to produce a copy of the 3 Judgment and Decree passed in Regular Civil Suit No.59 of 2009 dated 27-12-2010. 3. Shri V. P. Thali, learned Counsel for the said parties has vehemently opposed the said applications and submitted that the said Judgment is not at all relevant for the purpose of deciding the above appeals and according to him, the Judgment passed in Regular Civil Suit No.59 of 2009 is in the Civil Suit filed prior to the reference proceedings which are the subject matter of the above appeals. Shri Thali, learned Counsel further submits that the findings given in the said appeal have no bearing for the purpose of deciding the above appeals and as such, the question of granting any relief in the above applications does not arise. Shri Thali contends that the said Judgment has not attained finality as according to him his client has already preferred a Second Appeal. 4. Having heard the learned Counsel, it is not disputed that the subject matter of the dispute in Regular Civil Suit No.59 of 2009 is in respect of the same property part of which is the subject matter of the reference proceedings. It is also not in dispute that all the parties in the present proceedings are parties in the said Regular Civil Suit. As the 4 Judgment is in respect of the same property keeping the contentions raised by Shri Thali open, I find that there is no reason to refuse leave to the Applicants to produce the said documents. 5. The relevancy of the said Judgment will be considered at the time of the final hearing of the appeal keeping the contentions raised by Shri Thali open. The Applicants are permitted to rely upon the said Judgment passed in Regular Civil Suit No.59 of 2009 dated 27-12-2010, subject to the above. 6. All the applications stand disposed of accordingly with no orders as to costs. 7. Place all the matters for final hearing after two weeks i.e. 30-6-2011. F. M. REIS, J. RD