IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 404 OF 2008 MRS. MARIA ALICE DA SILVA DE NORONHA E OLIVEIRA THROUGH ATTORNEY CRISTOVAM PINTO ... Petitioner Versus PROF. MARIA ELSA NORONHA WOLFANGO DE SILVA (DECEASED) BY LR ANTONIO SEQUEIRA AND 6 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. Iftikhar Agha,Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. V.R. Tamba, Advocate for the Respondent no.1. Coram:- S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. Date:- 22nd July, 2008 P.C. 1. By consent of both the counsel at the hearing of Misc. Civil Application No.551/2008, the date of Admission of Writ Petition is preponed, and this Writ Petition itself is taken up on board for final disposal. 2. The Writ Petition is filed against an order passed by the trial Court rejecting an application of the defendant no.6 to extend the date of her examination as a witness. Both sides had not disputed that the hearing of suit is expedited by Hon'ble Supreme Court and in pursuance the Trial Court has taken up the suit for disposal. The submission made by the Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner/original defendant no.6 is that defendant no.6 is residing at Lisbon and for her to travel and reach Goa will take some time. Further, she was ailing and therefore unfit to travel for some time. Now, she has left Lisbon and she is likely to reach Goa by 23rd July, 2008. The matter was fixed before the Trial Court on 22nd, but apprehending that the petitioner may not get the opportunity to put the witness in the witness box, this Writ Petition is filed. This Court issued notice to the original plaintiff and granted limited protection to the petitioner. In other words, further proceedings in the subject suit were stayed and the matter was placed for admission. 3. The Learned Advocate appearing for the original plaintiff submits that this is an expedited suit. Delaying tactics are adopted and when other defendants also parties and residing in Goa they could have very well stepped into the witness box, so as to save valuable justice time. In such circumstances, this is not a fit case where a discretionary order should be interfered under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. Taking into account the totality of facts and circumstances and further noting that the defendant no.6 is to reach Goa on 23rd July, 2008, interest of Justice would be sub-served if the trial Court is directed to record the evidence of defendant no.6 on 29.7.2008, provided the original defendant no.6 attends the Trial Court at 10.30 a.m. on that date. If the defendant no.6 is present and if her Counsel is absent for any reason, her right of stepping into the witness box stands forfeited. If the defendant no.6 is not present on that date, the matter will proceed on the basis of Deposition of other witnesses of the defendants. In no circumstances the Trial Court will accommodate the defendant no.6 any further. Considering that the matter is time bound and repeated extensions have been sought, the defendant no.6 is granted this last opportunity. However, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, there will be no order as to costs. Writ Petition disposed off accordingly. S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. cg