IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 436 OF 2010 MR.SEBASTIAN LUCAS ... Petitioner Versus MENINO CAMILO FERNANDES AND ANR., ... Respondents Mr. Mark Lobo, Advocate for the Petitioner. Coram:- N. A. BRITTO, J. Date:- 17th June, 2010 P.C.: Heard Shri M. Lobo, Advocate for the petitioner. 2. Petitioner is plaintiff in RCS No.45/2007/E. The petitioner has filed the suit for recovery of possession of a house, a house, learned Counsel informs, is at present not existing. The plaintiff himself in the said suit filed an application purporting it to be an application under Section 32 of the Mundkar Act to refer issue of mundkarship to the mamlatdar for his decision. That application has been dismissed by the impugned order. In dismissing the order, the learned trial Court has observed as follows; "The issues framed by this Court are very well within the jurisdiction of this Court and this Court is empowered to adjudicate the said issue. It is not required to refer any of the issues framed by this Court to the Mamlatdar under Section 32 of the Mundkar Act for adjudication. The proceedings which are filed before the Mamlatdar Court is with regard to the protection against threatened dispossession under Section 4 sub clause (3) of the Mundkar Act which has nothing to do with the present suit. Though, the nature of relief's in the said Mundkarial Proceedings and the relief's sought in the present suit are almost the same, this suit cannot be stayed on the said ground as there is no such provision in the Code of Civil Procedure." 3. Considering that the present suit is filed by the plaintiff under Section 6 of Specific Relief Act, a relief which can be granted by the Civil Court, the impugned order cannot be faulted. Writ Petition therefore is dismissed in limine. N. A. BRITTO, J. NH