Dismissed¶29

Victor Santan D Cunha(Since Deceased), Thr. Lr'S v. Francis Manuel D Cunha

Bombay HC14 Jan 2026CRA/13/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRA No.13 of 2025; High Court of Bombay at Goa; Justice Valmiki Menezes; decided 24th April, 2026; review application delay 6 years 52 days; Order 47 CPC new material; DW1 deposition SCS No.14/2006; condonation application dated 24.04.2024 not supported by affidavit; decree dated 03.05.2018 RCS No.178/2009/D; trial Court order dated 19.04.2025 rejected review; Civil Judge Senior Division Mapusa; revision application rejected, no costs; Victor Santan D'Cunha v. Francis Manuel D'Cunha; Gift Deed dated 03.06.1994; Inventory Proceeding No.171/2001/C.

What did the court decide?

None; the revision application was rejected and no costs were awarded. ¶29

Victor Santan D Cunha(Since Deceased), Thr. Lr'S vs Francis Manuel D Cunha — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the revision application was rejected and no costs were awarded.

¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether there is cause for interference by this Court with the trial Court's impugned order dated 19.04.2025 rejecting the Applicant's review application. +1 more

¶28

Court's answer

There is no cause for interference with the impugned order dated 19.04.2025 rejecting the Applicant's review application.

¶28

Ratio / Principle

On perusal of the application for review there is absolutely no reason or justification offered for the delay of 6 years and 52 days in filing the review.

¶22

Key takeaways

The condonation application dated 24.04.2024 produced by the Applicant during arguments was not supported by an affidavit and pleaded no facts stating or justifying the circumstances of the 6-years-and-52-days delay; only Counsel's alleged inaction was invoked.ratio¶27
No justification was offered for the delay even though the Applicant, as a party Plaintiff to SCS No.14/2006, had knowledge of the pendency of the suits in which he is a party plaintiff; the DW1-deposition ground under Order 47 CPC therefore does not excuse the delay.ratio¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Bombay at Goa (Valmiki Menezes, J.), Civil Revision Application No.13 of 2025, dated 24th April, 2026 - Victor Santan D Cunha (decd.), thr. LRs v. Francis Manuel D Cunha: Upheld the trial Court's order dated 19.04.2025 rejecting the Applicant's review application (Civil Review Application No. 01/2024/D) of the decree dated 03.05.2018 in RCS No.178/2009/D (suit challenging a Gift Deed dated 03.06.1994 as fraudulent and beyond the disposable quota; decree had attained finality). The review, grounded under Order 47 CPC on 'new material' (DW1's deposition in SCS No.14/2006, completed 14.11.2019), carried an unexplained delay of 6 years and 52 days; the belatedly produced condonation application dated 24.04.2024 was unsupported by an affidavit and pleaded no circumstances justifying the delay. Finding no cause for interference, the revision application was rejected with no costs.

¶1

9 CRA 13 2025

¶2

Meena

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.13 OF 2025

¶4

VICTOR SANTAN D CUNHA(SINCE DECEASED), THR. LR'S ... APPLICANTS Versus FRANCIS MANUEL D CUNHA ... RESPONDENT

¶5

... RESPONDENT

¶6

Mr. Valerian D'Cunha, Petitioner No.1(b) in person.

¶7

Mr. Sagar Sarmalkar, Advocate for the Respondent.

¶8

CORAM:- VALMIKI MENEZES, J. DATED :- 24th April, 2026

¶9

P.C.:

¶10

1.�The applicant is present in person. This is a Revision Application filed against on order dated 19.04.2025, by which the Civil Court has rejected the Applicant's application for review of a judgment and decree dated 03.05.2018 passed in Regular Civil Suit No.178/2009/D before the Civil Judge Senior Division, Mapusa. The main ground on which the application for review was rejected is that there is an unexplained delay of 6 years and 52 days in filing the Review Application, since the suit was disposed of on 03.05.2018, whilst the application for review was filed on 24.04.2024 (Civil Review Application No. 01/2024/D).

Page 1 of 4

24th April, 2026

9 CRA 13 2025

2.�On perusal of the record, the following facts are established, which throw light on the conduct of the review applicant before the trial Court.

¶15

The applicant initially filed Special Civil Suit No. 14/2006, challenging a final order dated 16.12.2004 in Inventory Proceeding No.171/2001/C. According to the Applicant, who was the Plaintiff in that suit, the final orders in the inventory proceedings were obtained fraudulently. Whilst that suit was pending, the Applicant filed a second suit which bears No. RCS 178/2009/D from which the present review order arises, in which he has challenged a Gift Deed dated 03.06.1994, on the ground that the same was executed by fraud and that the Gift Deed gifts properties, beyond the disposable quota. That suit came to be disposed of by Decree dated 03.05.2018, which has not been assailed further in appeal, and has attained finality.

¶16

3.�In the meantime, the Defendant No.1 stepped into the witness box as witness No.DW1 in SCS No.14/2006 and deposed in the matter. The deposition commenced on 14.11.2017 and was completed on 14.11.2019. This deposition was therefore being recorded whilst RCS No.178/09/D was still not disposed of; however, the deposition of DW1 was completed immediately after RCS No.178/2009/D was disposed of.

¶17

The Review Application to seek the setting aside of the decree

Page 2 of 4

24th April, 2026

9 CRA 13 2025

dated 02.05.2018 in RCS No. 178/2009/D has been filed partly on the premise that the Applicant has come into possession of the deposition of DW1, i.e. Defendant No.1 in SCS No.14/2006, which, if considered, would result in the setting aside of the decree dated 03.05.2018. Thus, the grounds taken under Order 47 CPC are that the review is premised on new material. However, no justification has been offered by the Applicant, who was party to SCS No.14/2006, as to why there is a delay of 6 years and 52 days, despite having knowledge of the pendency of the suits in which he is a party plaintiff.

¶22

4.�The trial Court has dismissed the review application mainly on the ground that no material has been placed on record, or even an application for condonation of delay has been sought to condone the delay of 6 years and 52 days in filing the review application. If one peruses the application for review, there is absolutely no reason or justification for a delay of 6 years and 52 days for filing the review.

¶23

5.�During the course of the arguments, the party in person/Applicant submitted that an application for condonation dated 24.04.2024 was in fact filed by him before the trial Court. He has produced a copy of the same before me. The learned Advocate for the Respondents disputes this position on the basis of the instructions received by the Advocate appearing for the Defendants, that no such application was actually before the Court. Nevertheless, I have perused the application now placed before me and taken note of the fact that it is not supported by

Page 3 of 4

24th April, 2026

9 CRA 13 2025

an affidavit, nor, on perusal of the entire application, is there any fact pleaded to state the circumstances under which and justified the filing of the review application after 6 years and 52 days of delay. The application has three paragraphs in which the first two paragraphs only refer to the proceedings in the suit. Paragraph 2 states that the Applicant has filed the application with a delay because of the inaction and omission of his Counsel. There is no attempt made, by necessary averments in the application, to set and justify why 6 years and 52 days were taken by the Applicant to file the application, when he was a party Plaintiff to Special Civil Suit No.14/2006, in which he seeks to produce deposition of witness DW1.

¶28

6.�Considering all these facts which are borne from the record, there is no cause for interference with the impugned order dated 19.04.2025.

¶29

7,�The Application is rejected. No costs.

¶30

VALMIKI MENEZES, J.

¶31

Signed by: MEENA VISHAL BHOIR Designation: Private Secretary Date: 29/04/2026 14:04:53

¶32

Page 4 of 4

¶33

24th April, 2026

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order of the trial Civil Court rejecting the Applicant's review application (Civil Review Application No. 01/2024/D) of the judgment and decree dated 03.05.2018 in RCS No.178/2009/D, mainly on the ground of an unexplained delay of 6 years and 52 days.¶10
Civil Court (Civil Judge Senior Division, Mapusa) · 19.04.2025
Prior proceeding
Applicant, as Plaintiff, filed Special Civil Suit No. 14/2006 challenging the final order dated 16.12.2004 in Inventory Proceeding No.171/2001/C, alleging the inventory orders were obtained fraudulently.¶15
Prior proceeding
Applicant filed a second suit, RCS No.178/2009/D, challenging a Gift Deed dated 03.06.1994 as executed by fraud and gifting properties beyond the disposable quota; the suit was decreed on 03.05.2018, was never assailed in appeal and attained finality.¶15
Prior proceeding
Defendant No.1 stepped into the witness box as DW1 in SCS No.14/2006; his deposition commenced on 14.11.2017 and was completed on 14.11.2019, i.e. immediately after RCS No.178/2009/D was disposed of.¶16
Prior proceeding
Review application seeking setting aside of the decree dated 03.05.2018 was filed on 24.04.2024 as Civil Review Application No. 01/2024/D, entailing an unexplained delay of 6 years and 52 days.¶10
Prior proceeding
Grounds of the review application were taken under Order 47 CPC, premised on new material - the Applicant's possession of DW1's deposition in SCS No.14/2006, said to result in setting aside of the decree.¶21
Prior proceeding
Trial Court dismissed the review application mainly because no material was placed on record and no application for condonation of the 6-years-and-52-days delay was sought.¶22
Prior proceeding
During arguments before this Court the Applicant claimed a condonation application dated 24.04.2024 had been filed before the trial Court and produced a copy; the Respondent's Advocate disputed that any such application was actually before the Court.¶23

Victor Santan D Cunha(Since Deceased), Thr. Lr'S v. Francis Manuel D Cunha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Victor Santan D Cunha(Since Deceased), Thr. Lr'S v. Francis Manuel D Cunha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Gunawanti Pandu Gaude and 7 Ors. vs Rajesh Sawalo Alias Sanvol Alias Savlo Alias Saulo Jalmi

Vijay Kumar Sarkar, Thr. Poa Mery Paul vs Valentino Antonio Brito and Anr.

Vijay Kumar Sarkar, Thr. Poa Mery Paul vs Valentino Antonio Brito and Anr.

Santan E. Cardozo, vs M/S Venus Agents and Investors Association and 3 Ors.

Akshay Ajay Nawle vs Natividade Jerome Dsouza and 2 Ors.

Hemal Khanderia vs M/S. United Builders, Thr. Their Partner Rashmibhai Kotecha