IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 177 OF 2008 MRS. JOANITA PEREIRA AND ANR., ... Petitioners Versus STATE OF GOA REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY AND 4 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. Joseph Rodricks, Advocate for the petitioners. Adv. Mario Pinto Almeida,Advocate for No.5. Coram:- A. P. LAVANDE, J. Date:- 11th December, 2008 P.C. 1. Heard Mr.Rodricks, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Mr.Almeida, learned Counsel for the respondent No.5 and Ms.Susan Linhares,learned Additional Government Counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and 3(a). 2. By this petition, the petitioners challenge the order dated 25.02.2008 passed by the Ad hoc District Judge-I, South Goa, Margao in Civil Suit No.283/2004 by which the application filed by the respondent No.5 seeking permission to file the written statement and to cross-examine the plaintiffs and their witnesses, has been allowed. 3. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and having perused the record, I am of the considered opinion that this is not a fit case in which the impugned order deserves to be set aside in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India. By the impugned order, the respondent No.5, who is defendant No.5 in the above suit, has been permitted to file the written statement and to cross-examine the plaintiffs and their witnesses. It is not in dispute that in terms of the impugned order, the written statement has already been filed by the respondent No.5. This is an additional reason for me not to interfere with the impugned order. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioners ought to have been compensated by the Trial Court while permitting the defendant No.5 to file the written statement and to cross-examine the plaintiffs and their witnesses. Accordingly, although the impugned order is maintained, the respondent No.5 is directed to pay costs of Rs.7,500/- to the petitioners / plaintiffs. The costs shall be deposited in the Trial Court within a period of four weeks with liberty to the petitioners to withdraw the same after the costs are deposited. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. A. P. LAVANDE, J. SMA