Dismissed

Shri. Ranjit Satardekar and Anr., v. Shri. Joe Mathias and 4 Ors.

Bombay HC1 Mar 2012WP/201/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition under Article 226/227 challenging an order directing the trial court to engross a final inventory proceeding order on stamp paper. The court held that the order involved only a ministerial act, did not affect any rights, and the matter was pending appeal.

What did the court decide?

The trial court to comply with the direction of engrossment of the final order within two weeks.

Shri. Ranjit Satardekar and Anr., Vs Shri. Joe… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

¶2

WRIT PETITION NO. 201 OF 2008

¶3

SHRI. RANJIT SATARDEKAR AND ANR., ... Petitioners Versus SHRI. JOE MATHIAS AND 4 ORS., ... Respondents

¶4

Ms. Susan Linhares, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Y.V. Nadkarni,Advocate for Respondent no. 1 (caveator). Mr. N. Noronha, Advocate for Respondent no.3(b),3b(1),3h,3h(1),3h(ii),3B(1)

¶5

Coram:S. C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.

¶6

Date:1st March, 2012

¶7

P.C:

¶8

This Writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order passed on 14/3/2008 in Civil Miscellaneous Application NO.148/2006/A in Inventory Proceedings No.310/2004/A. By the order under challenge, the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mapusa has allowed this application.

¶9

This application was made by the Interested party, Mr. Jose Mathias to have the order of the trial Court engrossed on the stamp paper.

¶10

The contents of this application would disclose that the Inventory proceedings have been concluded. The prayer was that the order finalising the proceedings by confirming the allowance, may be opted to be registered. To facilitate registration and even otherwise it is proper to have the said orders engrossed on the stamp paper, which are already produced before this Court that a direction be issued so that the order passed by the trial Court is engrossed on stamp paper.

¶11

4. This application was made on 21/11/2006.

¶12

Upon this application, the petitioner objects by pointing out that the stamp papers which have been produced were not sufficient and inadequate for engrossing of the order. Secondly, it is stated that the contesting respondent/interested party was desirous of having the order registered and made an application for sending it for registration. But that application being Portuguese Civil Miscellaneous Application No.41/2008/A has been rejected by the trial court by its order dated 18/7/2009. Therefore, the earlier order of 14/2/2008 be also set aside was his request. In any event, against the main order which has been passed, the petitioner has filed an appeal being First Appeal No.289/2006 which has been admitted on 20/12/2006.

¶13

I have heard Mrs. Linhares, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Nadkarni, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Jose Mathias, respondent no.1 who is the contesting respondent. With their assistance, I have perused the petition and all annexures thereto, including the impugned order.

¶14

In my opinion, all that the trial Court has directed by the impugned order is to perform and comply with an administrative and ministerial act. The stamp papers were already provided by the first respondent. However, the final order passed on 18/8/2006 of the Inventory Court required engrossment and that was not done. That is why the interested party made that application which has been granted. That the document has not been thereafter sent for registration and the application of the interested party in that behalf is rejected, by itself and without anything more, is no ground to set aside the impugned order.

¶15

The impugned order does not affect any of the rights of the petitioner including to proceed with the first appeal. In fact the First Appeal is an appeal by which this Court will scrutinize the final order dated 18/8/2006 on facts as well as on law. In such circumstances, finding that there will be no prejudice caused to the petitioner and all acts performed so also orders passed are subject to the first appeal, there is no need to interfere with the order under challenge. The same cannot be said to be vitiated by any error apparent or perversity requiring interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petition is clearly misconceived and therefore dismissed, but without costs.

¶16

The trial Court to now comply with the direction of engrossment of the final order within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶17

S. C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.

¶18

ap/-

Shri. Ranjit Satardekar and Anr., v. Shri. Joe Mathias and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Ranjit Satardekar and Anr., v. Shri. Joe Mathias and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Deputy Collector(L.a.) and Anr., Vs Mrs. Lidia Barboza, Rep.by L.Rs.

Putzmeister Ag Vs Putzmeister India Pvt.Ltd., Panaji Goa.

Deputy Collector (L.a) Margao and Anr., Vs Mr. Peregrino J. P. De Costa (Deceased) through Lr'S

M/S. Pandurang Timblo through Its Group Hr Head, Mr Dattaprasad Gaunekar Vs the Commissioner of Labour and Employment and 2 Ors.

Mr. Walburg Verissimo Coutinho Vs the Comunidade of Margao through Its Attorney

Zuari Holdings Limited., Vs .