... 1 ... IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA. WRIT PETITION NO.40 of 2008 1. Angelina Colaco e Dias widow of Florencio Jacinto Dias, 2. Cristina Dias, daughter of late Jacinto Dias, 3. Luis Dias, son of late Jacinto Dias, 4. Fatima Dias, daughter of late Jacinto Dias, 5. Wilfred Dias, son of late Jacinto Dias, All original residents of Vaddem, Vasco da Gama, currently with address at 'Agnel Villa', South Stand Stadium road, Fatorda, Goa. ... Petitioners v e r s u s 1. Antoneta Gomes, widow of Andre Gomes, House No.576, Opp. Goa Shipyard, Vaddem, Vasco da Gama, Goa. ... 2 ... 2. Elsa Gomes, daughter of late Andre Gomes, 3. Irene Gomes, daughter of late Andre Gomes, 4. Lucy Gomes, daughter of late Andre Gomes, 5. Melita Gomes, daughter of late Andre Gomes, All with address at House No.576, Opp. Goa Shipyard, Vaddem, Vasco da Gama, Goa. ... Respondents Mr. C. Mascarenhas Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. R. Naik, holding for Mr. A. B. De sa for the respondents. CORAM: A. P. LAVANDE, J. DATE : 28th NOVEMBER,2008. ORAL JUDGMENT: By this petition, the petitioners challenge the orders dated 26.04.2007, 04.10.2007, 11.10.2007 ... 3 ... and 16.10.2007 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, in Special Civil Suit No.55/2001/B. 2. The petitioners are the defendants and the respondents are the plaintiffs in the above suit. The suit was contested by the defendants and after the evidence of the plaintiffs was over, the defendant no.2 stepped in the witness box and when the defendant no.2 was being cross examined, the plaintiff filed an application seeking to produce the award dated 26.02.1975 passed by the Land Acquisition Officer on the ground that the same was traced after the plaintiffs had led evidence. The application filed by the plaintiffs was allowed inspite of objection by the defendants by order dated 26.04.2007. According to the petitioners thereafter, the matter was adjourned to 12.06.2007, the Advocate appearing for the defendants wrongly took the date as ... 4 ... 22.06.2007 instead of 12.06.2007 and as such defendants did not appear in Court on 12.06.2007. The plaintiffs appeared and produced the said award and thereafter the mater was adjourned to 19.06.2007 on which date none appeared on behalf of the defendants since the Advocate for the defendants had taken next date as 26.06.2007. On 19.06.2007 since none appeared on behalf of the defendants, cross examination of the plaintiffs was closed. The petitioner made an application to recall the order dated 26.04.2007 which was dismissed by order dated 04.10.2007. Thereafter the matter was adjourned to 11.10.2007 for continuation of cross examination of the defendant no.2 on which date adjournment was sought on behalf of the plaintiffs on the ground that the defendant no.2 was out of Goa. The same was rejected by the Trial Court and the matter was adjourned to 16.10.2007 on which date again ... 5 ... adjournment was sought. The Trial Court was pleased to pass an order closing the defence of the defendants and fix the matter for final arguments. Aggrieved by the orders dated 26.04.2007, 04.10.2007, 11.10.2007 and 16/10/2007 the petitioners hve filed the present petition. 2. Mr. C. Mascarenhas, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that serious prejudice will be caused to the petitioners if the plaintiffs who have been allowed to produce the document are not allowed to cross examine the plaintiffs. He further submitted that the order passed by the Trial Court refusing time to cross examine the defendant no.1 as well as order closing the defence evidence have caused serious prejudice to the defendants. In view of the said orders, the defendants are precluded from leading evidence in support of their defence. ... 6 ... 3. Per contra, Mr. R. Naik, holding for Mr. A. B. De Sa, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submited that the Trial Court has not committed any jurisdictional error and as suchno case has been made out by the petitioners for interference of this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction. 4. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, I am of the considered opinion that it would be in the interest of justice to permit the defendants to cross examine the plaintiffs in view of the fact that the plaintiffs had been permitted to produced the award dated 26.02.1975 in land acquisition case. I am not inclined to set aside the order passed by the Trial Court allowing examination ... 7 ... of the plaintiffs but it would be in the interest of justice to permit the defendants to cross examine the plaintiffs subject to payment of costs. Similarly, the orders dated 11.10.2007 and 16.10.2007 passed by the Trial Court would have the effect of denying the defendants to lead evidence in support of the defence and as such the same are also liable to be quashed and set aside, subject to imposition of costs. 5. In view of the above, the defendants are permitted to cross examine the plaintiffs and the impugned orders dated 11.10.2007 and 16.10.2007 passed by the Trial Court are set aside subject to the petitioners paying costs of Rs.10,000/- to the plaintiffs which shall be the condition precedent. The Trial Court shall permit the plaintiffs to cross examine the defendant no.2 and also permit the defendants to lead further evidence on the dates ... 8 ... fixed by the Trial Court. The Trial Court shall fix dates for cross examination of the plaintiffs as well as defendant no.2 and examination of the witnesses on behalf of the defendants and in case, the said witnesses appear on those dates, record their evidence. In case either the witnesses do not appear or the counsel of the parties do not appear on the date fixed, the trial Court to pass appropriate orders. The petitioners shall deposit costs before the Trial Court within a period of three weeks with liberty to the defendants to withdraw after the costs are deposited. Interim order dated 25.01.2008 stands vacated. The parties shall appear before the Trial Court on 20.12.2008 at 10.00 a.m. Since the suit is of the year 2001, the Trial Court shall dispose the suit expeditiously. ... 9 ... 6. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. A. P. LAVANDE, J. lh/.