Allowed

Anant Mahadev Revonkar., v. Moti Ramchandra Banaulikar.

Bombay HC16 Jun 2021WP/587/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged an order sending a civil suit to record without hearing due to a pending incumbentship issue. The High Court held that the impugned order was ambiguous and proceeded without hearing, reversing it to fix the suit on the regular board for hearing.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; suit taken on regular board; date fixed for hearing.

Anant Mahadev Revonkar., Vs Moti Ramchandra… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

Andreza -1-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 587 OF 2019

¶3

Mr. Anant Mahadev Revonkar

¶4

Since deceased,
1(a) Mr. Pramod Anant Rivonkar
s/o late Mr. Anant Mahadev Rivonkar
56 years of Age, Indian National, married to

¶5

(b) Mrs. Naina Pramod Rivonkar
w/o Mr. Pramod Anant Rivonkar
49 years of age, Indian National.

¶6

(c) Mr. Prasad Anant Rivonkar
s/o late Mr. Anand Mahadev Rivonkar
54 years of age, Indian National, married to

¶7

(d) Mrs. Leena Prasad Rivonkar
w/o Prasad Anant Rivonkar,
43 years of age, Indian National
(e) Mr. Prashant Anant Rivonkar
s/o Late Mr Anant Mahadev Rivonkar
52 years of age, Indian National, married to
(f) Mrs. Preeti Prashant Rivonkar
w/o Mr. Prashant Rivonkar
45 years of age, Indian National
All the above are R/o. Namas Titawada,
Nerul,Bardez, Goa.…...Petitioner
V e r s u s
Shri Moti Ramchandra Banaulikar
s/o Ramchandra Banaulikar
Major in age,
resident of Namas Titawada,
Nerul, Bardez, Goa.…...Respondents
Mr. Vivek Rodrigues, Advocate for the Petitioners.
Mr. A. D. Bhobe, Advocate for the Respondents.

¶8

Coram :-M. S. SONAK, J.
Date : 16th June, 2021

¶9

Andreza -2-

¶10

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶11

1. Heard Mr. Vivek Rodrigues, learned Counsel for the Petitioners and Mr. A. D. Bhobe, learned Counsel for the Respondents.

¶12

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith at the request and with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.

¶13

3. The challenge in this Petition is to the order dated 02.05.2019 made by the learned Trial Court in Civil Misc. Application No. 13 of 2018/C by which the Petitioners-original Plaintiffs had sought for the following relief :

¶14

“It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to order to take up the Regular Civil Suit no. 94/82 on regular board and date be fixed for hearing of the parties.”

¶15

4. The record indicated that in the suit, the Trial Court had framed the issue of Mundkarship and, thereafter referred the same to the Mamlatdar for adjudication. As yet, there is nothing on record to indicate that the Mamlatdar has decided this issue one way or the other.

¶16

5. In the roznama dated 08.09.1989, in the main suit, before the Trial Court, the following entry appears :

¶17

“Called out today before me. Notices issued to the respective advocates returned with endorsement that they are not having

¶18

Andreza -3-

¶19

briefs of their respective parties. Similarly, notices issued to the
parties came back with report of bailiff that nobody knows
whereabouts of the parties and this being the position inspite of
all our aforesaid efforts to serve the parties as well as advocates,
I think there is no reason in keeping the file alive henceforth.
In view of the above, I pass the following order. Send the file to
record.”

¶20

6. Mr. Bhobe, the learned Counsel, refers to clause 530 of the Civil Manual to submit that only in decided cases, the file is sent to record. He submits that from the tenure of the order dated 08.09.1989, it appears that the suit was dismissed and only thereafter sent to record.

¶21

7. On the other hand, Mr. Rodrigues, the learned Counsel, submits that

¶22

the order dated 08.09.1989 does not speak of the dismissal of the suit, in
which case, a Decree would have to be drawn out. He submits that even
before the suit could be decided, the same was incorrectly sent to record.

¶23

8. Mr. Rodrigues also pointed out that the record indicates that none of the parties or their Advocates were actually served in the matter. He submits that since the issue of Mundkarship was pending, there was no occasion for making the order dated 08.09.1989.

¶24

Andreza -4-

¶25

9. According to me, the order dated 08.09.1989, to say the least, is quite

¶26

ambiguous. Accordingly, the parties to the proceedings are required to be
heard on all issues which arise in relation to the order dated 08.09.1989 and
thereafter the applications made by the parties in the suit. The Petitioners
had only prayed for taking up the Regular Civil Suit No. 94 of 1982/C on
the regular board and fix a date for hearing of the parties.

¶27

10. Having regard to the order dated 08.09.1989, the aforesaid limited prayer for taking up the suit on regular board and fixing a date for hearing of the parties should have been granted. Thereafter, the parties could have been heard on all issues including the implications of the order dated 08.09.1989 as well as other related issues. There was no justification in refusing the prayer of even taking up the Regular Civil Suit on the regular board and fixing a date for hearing of the parties.

¶28

11. At the stage of deciding the present application, the learned Trial Judge should not have gone into the issues which it has chosen to address or make the observations which it had made. After taking the suit on regular

¶29

Andreza -5-

¶30

board and offering suitable opportunity to the parties, the matter could have

¶31

been decided one way or the other. Therefore, the impugned order is
hereby set aside. The Regular Civil Suit No. 94 of 1982/C is directed to be
taken up on regular board and a date is to be fixed for regular hearing of the
same.

¶32

12. All contentions of all parties including contentions in the suit which

¶33

in fact stands dismissed, are left open for consideration by the Trial Court.

¶34

13. The Rule in the Petition is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.

¶35

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶36

14. The parties to appear before the Trial Court on 30.06.2021 at 10.00

¶37

a.m. and file an authenticated copy of this order.

¶38

15. All concerned to act on the basis of an authenticated copy of this

¶39

order and proceed accordingly.

¶40

M. S. SONAK, J.

¶41

Digitally signed by ANDREZA ANDREZA PEREIRA PEREIRA Date: 2021.06.18 16:32:17 +05'30'

Anant Mahadev Revonkar., v. Moti Ramchandra Banaulikar.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anant Mahadev Revonkar., v. Moti Ramchandra Banaulikar.

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

Amol Sawant., Vs the Public Information Officer.

Amelino Clifton De Rosario Azavedo and Anr., Vs Newton Azavedo and 3 Ors.

Mahesh S. Raikar Vs the Administrator of Devalayas and the Mamlatdar of Ponda and 9 Ors.

Anil Fondu Naik Gaonkar., Vs State of Goa, Thr. Its Chief Secretary and 3 Ors.

Ashwin Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Thr. Its Aut. Rep., Ranjit Kumar Chowdhury., Vs Anthony Fernandes, Thr. His Poa, Rosa Conceicao Fernandes and 6 Ors.

Bhanudas Prabhakar Morajkar and 7 Ors. Vs Eknath Prabhakar Morajkar and 3 Ors.