AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.P. Lavande, J.—Heard Mrs. Dessai, learned Counsel for the Petitioners and Mr. Rodrigues, learned Counsel for Respondent Nos. 6 and 7. None for the other Respondents.
Rule. By consent of the learned Counsel for the parties heard forthwith.
By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners challenge the order dated 13th December, 2010 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Margao in Regular Civil Suit No. 173/1997/A by which the evidence of the Plaintiffs has been closed.
Perusal of the record discloses that the matter has been adjourned on several occasions at the instance of the Plaintiffs and the evidence of the Plaintiffs has been spread over for a quite long time. After granting several adjournments to the Plaintiffs to examine witnesses, on 13th December, 2010 when Mr. Cruz Sebastiao Cardozo - Plaintiff No. 2(a) who was to be examined on behalf of the Plaintiffs, could not remain present since he has been serving at Dubai and could not get leave. Consequently, the trial Court dismissed the application for adjournment and closed the evidence of the Plaintiffs.
Mrs. Dessai, learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that Plaintiff Nos. 2(a)-Mr. Cruz Cardozo could not remain present to depose in the matter since he could not get leave to come down to Goa from Dubai. She further states that presently, Plaintiff No. 2(a)-Cruz Cardozo is in Goa and the impugned order would cause serious prejudice to the Plaintiffs if it is not set aside in as much as the Plaintiffs would be deprived of the important evidence which the Plaintiffs want to tender through Cruz Cardozo. She, therefore, submitted that in the interest of justice the impugned order closing the evidence of the Plaintiffs be set aside on such terms and conditions this Court deems fit.
On behalf of Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 Mr. Rodrigues submitted that several opportunities have been given to the Plaintiffs to lead evidence and, therefore, the trial Judge was perfectly justified in passing the impugned order since the suit filed by the Plaintiffs was pretty old. He further submitted that no case is made out for interference with the impugned order.
Having considered the rival submissions and having perused the record, I am of the considered opinion that interest of justice would be served by giving one more opportunity to the Plaintiffs to examine Cruz Cardozo-Plaintiff No. 2(a) in support of the case of the Plaintiffs. The record discloses that the Plaintiffs have sought several adjournments in the matter. However, the fact remains that if the impugned order is not set aside the Plaintiffs would be deprived of an opportunity of leading evidence of an important witness to prove the case of the Plaintiffs.
In view of the above, the order dated 13th December, 2010 closing the case of the Plaintiffs is quashed and set aside and the Plaintiffs are permitted to examine only Mr. Cruz Sebastiao Cardozo subject to the condition that he shall appear on all the dates fixed by the trial Court and further subject to payment of costs of Rs. 10,000/-in favour of Defendants / Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 herein, who have contested the petition.
The parties shall appear before the trial Court on 14th February, 2011 at 10.00 a.m. The Petitioners shall deposit the costs in the trial Court by 14th February, 2011. Upon deposit, liberty to Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 to withdraw the same. In case the costs are not deposited, this order shall stand vacated and the impugned order shall stand revived. It is made clear that in the event Plaintiff No. 2(a) fails to appear on the date fixed for evidence, the trial Court will be free to close evidence of the said witness.
Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms.
Petitioners to act on the copy of this judgment duly authenticated to be supplied on payment of charges.