IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA MISC.CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 572 OF 2007 IN MISC.CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 141 OF 2007 SHRI SURYAKANT HALORNEKAR AND 2 ORS., ... Applicants Versus SHRI PANDURANG ALIAS ATU DHARMA DIUKAR(EXPIRED) THROUGH L.RS., AND 2 ORS., ... Respondents Applicant in Person. Mr. S. Padiyar,Advocate for the respondent No.3(vi) Ms R. Chodankar, Addl. Govt. Advocate for the respondent Nos. 3(i)(ii)(iii). Mr. Sudin Usgaonkar, Advocate for the respondent No.2. Coram:- N. A. BRITTO, J. Date:- 28th February, 2008 P.C. Heard the applicant in person. The applicant has declined the legal aid. It appears that there was a dispute between the applicant and one Pandurang alias Atu Dharma Divkar which gave rise to a suit being filed in the Court of Civil Judge, S.D. at Bicholim. An order dated 5.10.1990 was passed in the said suit against which the applicant along with two others approached this Court in Civil Revision Application No.154/1993. The said revision application was dismissed by an order dated 9.4.1997. Eventually, the said civil suit before the Court of Civil Judge, S.D. also came to be dismissed. As per the applicant, the said civil suit was filed by the said Pandurang alias Atu Dharma Divkar. However, it appears that the said Pandurang alias Atu Dharma Divkar was successful in the dispute in references before the District Court in L.A.C. Nos.176/1997 and 177/1997 and obtained the compensation payable on account of acquisition of the said disputed property. The applicant filed an application dated 19.10.2005(M.C.A. No.3/2006) to set aside the said order of this Court dated 9.4.1997 but that came to be dismissed by virtue of an order dated 11.9.2006, as per the order dated 3.2.2007. The applicant made another application on 23.2.2007(M.C.A. No.141/2007) which came to be dismissed for default on 28.6.2007. The application under consideration has been filed on 24.7.2007(M.C.A. No.572/2007) and apparently this application has been filed to set aside the order dated 28.6.2007. The contention of the applicant is that he could not appear before this Court on 28.6.2007 due to the death of his son on 28.2.2007 and he was not aware of the date of hearing i.e. to say 28.6.2007. It is also submitted that on the same day, he has to do the monthly offering of food in the name of his deceased son and as such he was not present on the said date. In my view and in the light of the facts stated herein above, no useful purpose will be served by considering the application on merits. The only remedy open to the applicant appears to be to proceed, in case is entitled in law, against the awards passed by the reference Court in the said Land Acquisition Cases. In view of the above, the application is dismissed. N. A. BRITTO, J. SMA