Allowed¶9

Agnelo Joaquim Monteiro v. Jonnathan Pereira and Anr.

Bombay HC16 Jul 2025WP/75/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Expeditious disposal of 24-year-old money-recovery suit; time-bound directions to trial court; dilatory tactics by defendants; 40+ adjournments; frivolous review and amendment applications; recall of witness refused; transfer application alleging bias dismissed; senior-citizen litigant; RCS 96/2001/A(Old) / 120/2015/F(New), Civil Judge Junior Division Panaji; undertaking by defendants to cooperate; deadline 30.09.2025; Valmiki Menezes J.; High Court of Bombay at Goa; WP 75/2025.

What did the court decide?

Rule made absolute: the Civil Judge Junior Division at Panaji was requested to complete the trial of Regular Civil Suit No. 96/2001/A(Old) [Regular Civil Suit No. 120/2015/F(New)] and dispose of the same preferably by 30.09.2025, the Defendants having undertaken to cooperate in expeditious disposal. ¶9

Agnelo Joaquim Monteiro Vs Jonnathan Pereira and Anr. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶9

Issue for consideration

Whether directions should be issued to expedite the hearing and disposal of Regular Civil Suit No. 96/2001/A(Old) [Regular Civil Suit No. 120/2015/F(New)], pending about 24 years, on the ground that the Defendants have inordinately delayed its trial.

¶3

Ratio / Principle

Perusal of the Roznama and the proceedings in the transfer application before the District Court clearly made out a case for directing the trial Court to dispose of Regular Civil Suit No.96/2001/A(Old) [Regular Civil Suit No. 120/2015/F(New)] in a time-bound manner.

¶7

Key takeaways

The Defendants' conduct across the 25-year pendency — with more than 40 hearings of adjournments sought — was clearly dilatory and justified this Court giving directions after recording the Defendants' undertaking to cooperate with the trial Court in expeditious disposal of the suit.ratio¶8
The Civil Judge Junior Division at Panaji dealing with the suit was requested to complete the trial and dispose of it preferably by 30.09.2025, and Rule was made absolute in terms of those directions.ratio¶9
Passing observation that this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court have, from time to time, been issuing directions to trial Courts — especially those handling matters over a decade old — to proceed expeditiously and ensure disposal.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court at Goa (Valmiki Menezes, J.; reserved 20.06.2025, pronounced 16.07.2025) allowed a writ petition by a 67-year-old businessman-plaintiff seeking expedition of Regular Civil Suit No. 96/2001/A(Old) [renumbered 120/2015/F(New)], a money-recovery suit pending about 24–25 years before the Civil Judge Junior Division at Panaji. From the Roznama and transfer-application record the Court catalogued the delay: Written Statement/Counterclaim filed 05.03.2002 and issues framed 07.12.2004; the plaintiff's cross-examination stretched from 09.01.2008 to 13.03.2019 with atleast 30 adjournments by the Defendants; a 2019 amendment application (Exh-D-72) took three years and was dismissed on 30.04.2022 without challenge; a recall application (Exh D-74) met the same fate, and two review applications (Exh D-84 and D-85) were dismissed on 04.10.2022 and 23.11.2022; defence evidence began only on 20.03.2024, and Defence Witness No.2 remained unexamined after atleast 5 further adjournments; interlocutory applications were repeatedly dismissed with costs; and a transfer application (CMA 66/2025) alleging bias was dismissed on 05.06.2025 by the Principal District Judge, North Goa, attaining finality. With adjournments exceeding 40 hearings and only one defence witness left, the Court found the Defendants' conduct 'clearly of dilatory nature', recorded their undertaking to cooperate, requested the trial Court to complete the trial and dispose of the suit preferably by 30.09.2025, and made Rule absolute.

¶1

2025:BHC-GOA:1210

¶2

WP No.75-2025.docx

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 75 OF 2025

¶5

Mr. Agnelo Joaquim Monteiro Son of late Pedro L.P. Monteiro Major in age 67 years of age, married, businessman, Indian National, R/o. ... PETITIONER H.No. 236/C Machado Dalem Morod Caranzalem, Ilhas, Goas

¶6

Versus

¶7

Mr. Jonnathan Pereira Son of late Joseph F. Pereira Major in age, businessman, bachelor

¶8

Mrs. Sonia Jema Pereira Daughter of late Joseph F Pereira Major in age, spinster Both R/o. Arogya Mata, Flat No.10 3^rd floor, Marinagar Mahim, Bombay 400 016 Both having alternate r/o. 21.355, Mirabel Hotel, Opp. Cidade Goa, Dona....RESPONDENTS Paula. Goa

¶9

¶10

WP No.75-2025.docx

¶11

Mr. Terence Vaz with Ms. Sampada Nishikant Poll, Advocate for the Petitioner.

¶12

Ms. Ashwini Agni (Through VC) along with Mr. Junaid Shaikh, Advocates for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶13

CORAM:- VALMIKI MENEZES, J.

¶14

RESERVED ON : 20TH JUNE, 2025 PRONOUNCED ON : 16TH JULY,2025

¶15

ORAL JUDGMENT:

¶16

1. Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner.

¶17

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with the consent

¶18

of the parties.

¶19

3. This is a petition seeking direction to expedite the hearing and disposal of Regular Civil Suit No. 96/2001/A(Old) [Regular Civil Suit No. 120/2015/F(New)], before the Civil Judge Junior Division at Panaji. The ground raised in the

¶20

¶21

WP No.75-2025.docx

¶22

petition is that the trial of the said suit has inordinately been delayed by the Defendants and the suit has been pending for about 24 years.

¶23

4. From the record of the Roznama and other proceedings, which include a transfer application before the District Court North Goa, the following facts undisputedly form part of the record:

¶24

i. The Petitioner filed the Regular Civil Suit No. 96/2001/A(Old) [Regular Civil Suit No. 120/2015/F(New)] on 07.09.2001 for recovery of money and other consequential reliefs seeking decree for payment of amount due towards an alleged loan which was advanced by the Petitioner to the Defendants. Subsequently the Defendants filed their Written Statement and Counter claim on 05.03.2002 and the Issues came to be framed on 07.12.2004.

¶25

¶26

WP No.75-2025.docx

¶27

ii. The Petitioner’s examination in chief began on 29.11.2005 and was completed by 09.01.2008. Thereafter his Cross examination commenced from 09.01.2008 which took more than 10 years to complete until 13.03.2019. During this period the Plaintiff has hardly sought any adjournments, however from the Roznama, it appears that the Defendants had adjourned the cross examination on atleast 30 occasions.

¶28

iii. On 14.06.2019, the Defendants filed an Application for amendment of the Written Statement and Counter claim (Exh-D-72), 17 years after it being filed. The Application took almost three years to decide and was ultimately dismissed vide order dated 30.04.2022. During these 3 years the Defendants sought atleast 4 adjournments during hearing of this application. This order dated

¶29

¶30

WP No.75-2025.docx

¶31

30.04.2022 dismissing the amendment application was never challenged before a higher forum.

¶32

iv. During the pendency of the application for amendment the Defendants filed an application dated 16.06.2019 for recall and reopening the Petitioner’s evidence (Exh D-74) which also came to be dismissed vide order dated 30.04.2022.T he Defendants then filed two review applications dated 19.05.2022 Exhibited as Exhibit D-84 and Exhibit D-85 with respect to orders passed on Exhibit D-72 and Exhibt-74 respectively. The review Application under Exhibit D-84 was dismissed vide order dated 04.10.2022 and the review Application under Exhibit D-85 was dismissed vide order dated 23.11.2022. Here again, there was no challenge to the order dismissing the application for recall of the witness.

¶33

¶34

WP No.75-2025.docx

¶35

v. The matter was then fixed for defendant’s evidence on 23.11.2022 however the examination in chief commenced only on 20.03.2024 and ended on 31.08.2024, after atleast 6 adjournments by the defendants. The Evidence of Defence witness No.2 was fixed on 16.10.2024 which has till date not commenced and has been adjourned on atleast 5 occasions by the defendants till 07.07.2025; the matter is now fixed on 23.07.2025 for recording the deposition of the second witness for the Defence.

¶36

vi. During the course of recording the evidence of the defendant, several applications, including an application for production of additional documents, correction of evidence of the defendant, framing of additional issues etc. which were all dismissed by imposing cost on the defendants.

¶37

¶38

WP No.75-2025.docx

¶39

5. On 09.04.2025 the Defendants filed a Transfer Application CMA No.66/2025 in the Court of the Principal District Judge North Goa, Panaji, alleging bias by the trial Court, against them by imposing costs whenever any application filed by the defendants was dismissed .Whilst this Petition was pending, and pursuant to order dated 25.04.2025 of this Court directing the District Court to dispose of the transfer application before 15.06.2025, the Principal District Court at Panaji, dismissed the transfer application No. CMA 66/2025 vide order dated 05.06.2025 holding that the defendants have not challenged any orders on merits. It also held that the case is old and should be decided expeditiously; Costs were imposed on the defendants due to their conduct. The Transfer has attained finality for want of further challenge.

¶40

6. Learned Advocate Mr. Terrance Vaz, appearing for the Petitioner, submits that the petitioner is a senior citizen; the suit is pending for last 24 years and Defence witnesses are yet

¶41

¶42

WP No.75-2025.docx

¶43

to be examined. The Respondents are filing applications intentionally to delay the matter and cause inconvenience to the Petitioner. Mr.Vaz further submitted that the Respondents are adding to the delay by seeking frivolous adjournments and which appears to be a dilatory tactic adopted and he further produced copy of the Roznama in the said suit.

¶44

7. Perusal of the Roznama and the various proceedings in the transfer application before the District Court clearly make out a case for directions to the trial Court to dispose of Regular Civil Suit No.96/2001/A(Old) [Regular Civil Suit No. 120/2015/F(New)] in a time bound manner. I have heard Ms. Ashwini Agni along with Mr. Junaid Shaikh who have assured this Court that the evidence of the Defendant would be completed without delay. The facts that can be culled out from the proceedings sheets, clearly point to the dilatory tactics being adopted by the Defendants, including by filing multiple and frivolous review applications. The defence has only one

¶45

¶46

WP No.75-2025.docx

¶47

more witness to examine and there is no cause at this stage to protract the trial of the suit any further. This Court, and the Hon’ble supreme Court has been, from time to time issuing directions to the trial Courts, especially those dealing with matters which are over a decade old, in an expeditious manner, to ensure their disposal.

¶48

8. This is a suit which was filed in the year 2001 and has by now completed twenty five years, with the defence witness not having been examined till now. The total number of adjournments sought by the Defendants throughout this period are more than 40 hearings. The conduct of the Defendants is clearly of dilatory nature and justifies directions being given by this Court, after recording the undertaking of the defendants that they would cooperate with the trial Court in expeditious disposal of the suit. Accordingly, the Civil Judge Junior Division at Panaji dealing with Regular Civil Suit No. 96/2001/A(Old) [Regular Civil Suit No. 120/2015/F(New)], is

¶49

¶50

WP No.75-2025.docx

¶51

requested to complete the trial of the suit and dispose of the same preferably by 30.09.2025.

¶52

9. Rule is made absolute in terms of the above directions.

¶53

VALMIKI MENEZES,J.

¶54

¶55

Signed by: MEENA VISHAL BHOIR Designation: Private Secretary Date: 16/07/2025 19:25:45

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Prior proceeding
Petitioner instituted Regular Civil Suit No. 96/2001/A(Old) [renumbered 120/2015/F(New)] on 07.09.2001 before the Civil Judge Junior Division at Panaji for recovery of money and other consequential reliefs on an alleged loan advanced to the Defendants.¶4(i)
Prior proceeding
Defendants filed their Written Statement and Counter claim on 05.03.2002; Issues framed on 07.12.2004.¶4(i)
Prior proceeding
Petitioner's examination-in-chief ran 29.11.2005 to 09.01.2008; his cross-examination commenced 09.01.2008 and took over ten years, completing only on 13.03.2019.¶4(ii)
Prior proceeding
During the cross-examination period the Plaintiff hardly sought adjournments while the Defendants adjourned it on atleast 30 occasions.¶4(ii)
Prior proceeding
On 14.06.2019, 17 years after the Written Statement was filed, Defendants applied to amend the Written Statement and Counter claim (Exh-D-72).¶4(iii)
Prior proceeding
The amendment application took almost three years to decide and was dismissed vide order dated 30.04.2022, with atleast 4 adjournments sought by Defendants during its hearing.¶4(iii)
Prior proceeding
The order dated 30.04.2022 dismissing the amendment application was never challenged before a higher forum.¶4(iii)
Prior proceeding
While the amendment application was pending, Defendants applied dated 16.06.2019 for recall and reopening of the Petitioner's evidence (Exh D-74); it was also dismissed vide order dated 30.04.2022.¶4(iv)
Prior proceeding
Defendants filed two review applications dated 19.05.2022 — Exhibit D-84 (against order on Exh-D-72) and Exhibit D-85 (against order on Exh-D-74).¶4(iv)
Prior proceeding
Review under Exhibit D-84 dismissed 04.10.2022 and review under Exhibit D-85 dismissed 23.11.2022; no challenge lay to the order dismissing the recall application.¶4(iv)
Prior proceeding
Defence evidence was fixed from 23.11.2022, but the defendant's examination-in-chief commenced only on 20.03.2024 and ended 31.08.2024 after atleast 6 adjournments by the Defendants.¶4(v)
Prior proceeding
Evidence of Defence Witness No.2, fixed for 16.10.2024, has still not commenced and was adjourned on atleast 5 occasions by the Defendants up to 07.07.2025; the matter is next listed on 23.07.2025.¶4(v)
Prior proceeding
During recording of defence evidence, several interlocutory applications (production of additional documents, correction of defence evidence, framing of additional issues, etc.) were dismissed with costs imposed on the Defendants.¶4(vi)
Prior proceeding
On 09.04.2025 the Defendants filed Transfer Application CMA No.66/2025 before the Principal District Judge, North Goa, Panaji, alleging bias by the trial Court in imposing costs on dismissal of their applications.¶5
Prior proceeding
Pursuant to this Court's order dated 25.04.2025 requiring disposal before 15.06.2025, the Principal District Court at Panaji dismissed CMA 66/2025 on 05.06.2025, holding the Defendants had challenged no orders on merits, that the old case should be decided expeditiously, and imposing costs for their conduct.¶5
Prior proceeding
The transfer order has attained finality for want of further challenge.¶5

Agnelo Joaquim Monteiro v. Jonnathan Pereira and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Agnelo Joaquim Monteiro v. Jonnathan Pereira and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prasanna Shrikant Akhadkar Vs V.P.K. Urban Co-Op. Society Ltd., Rep. by Its Legal Officer, Tukaram Gaude and Anr.

Lupin Ltd., Thr. Its Auth. Rep. K. Srinivas Rao vs Vasudev Gajanan Talekar

The State of Goa (Women Police Station) Vs Ashley Gomes

Egidio De Sa Vs Diocesan Society of Education Thr. Its Secretary and Anr.

Asmita Rajesh Hoble Vs Rajesh Ramnath Hoble

Advino Fernandes Vs the State of Goa, Thr. Its Chief Secretary and 7 Ors.