The High Court of Bombay, Goa disposed of three writ petitions. WP No. 179/2019 was dismissed as no jurisdictional error existed in an order allowing cross-examination in eviction proceedings. The other petitions were allowed to be withdrawn.
Leave to withdraw writ petitions No. 710/2012, 711/2012, 709/2012, and 179/2019 granted.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
9-WP-179-19,710,711 & 709-2012.DOC
Suchitra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
WRIT PETITION NO.179/2019
PARVATI PANDURANG MADVAL @ USGAONKAR (DEC) HER LRS. ALREADY ON RECORD AS PET. 2-4 & 3 ORS. … PETITIONERS
Versus
GURUDAS Y. PHADTE & ANR. … RESPONDENTS
Mr Ryan Menezes, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr Joaquim Godinho, Advocate for the Respondent No.2.
WRIT PETITION NO.710/2012
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.711/2012 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.709/2012
SUBHASH PANDURANG
SATARDEKAR … Petitioner Versus PARVATI PANDURANG
MADVAL AND 4 ORS. … Respondents
Mr Joaquim Godinho, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr Ryan Menezes, Advocate for the Respondents.
CORAM: M. S. SONAK, J.
DATED: 3rd March 2023
P.C.:
1. Mr Joaquim Godinho, learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petitions No.710/2012, 711/2012 and 709/2012, based on
Page 1 of 2 3rd March 2023
9-WP-179-19,710,711 & 709-2012.DOC
instructions from the petitioner Shri Subhash Satardekar, who is
present in the Court, seeks leave to withdraw these petitions. The
withdrawal is not opposed by Mr Ryan Menezes who appears for some
of the respondents in these petitions.
2. Accordingly, these petitions are disposed of as withdrawn.
3. In Writ Petition No.179/2019, the challenge is to the Order dated 18.08.2017 by which the Appeal Court has only permitted some of the respondents to cross-examine and contest the proceedings. The Court has observed that eviction proceedings should be decided by following the due process of law. There is no jurisdictional error in the impugned order. The impugned order does not cause any prejudice as such to the petitioners. All that the impugned order does is that it gives fair opportunity to all the parties in the proceedings to contest the same including by way of cross-examination.
4. Accordingly, no case is made out to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
5. Accordingly, even Writ Petition No.179/2019 is disposed of.
SUCHITRA Digitally signed by SUCHITRA NANDAN NANDAN SINGBAL SINGBAL Date: 2023.03.04 12:18:02 +05'30'
M. S. SONAK, J.
Page 2 of 2 3rd March 2023
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a challenge to an order permitting cross-examination in eviction proceedings warrants interference under Article 227.
Whether the withdrawal of multiple writ petitions can be allowed when not opposed by the respective respondents.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Parvati Pandurang Madval @ Usgaonkar (Dec) Her Lrs.
Gurudas Y. Phadte & Anr.
Subhash Pandurang Satardekar
Parvati Pandurang Madval And 4 Ors.
M. S. SONAK
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court