Bombay High Court
WP/625/2006 of PROF. MARIA ELSA NORONHA WOLFANGO DE SILVA (DECEASED) THROUGH HER LEGAL HEIR MR. ANTONIO SEQUEIRA Vs MRS. RICARDINA EMILIA GUEDES DE ALMEIDA DE SILVA NORONHA (DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LEGAL HEIRS AND OR on 27 December 2006
COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 625 OF 2006 PROF. MARIA ELSA NORONHA WOLFANGO ....Petitioner DE SILVA (DECEASED) THROUGH HER LEGAL HEIR MR. ANTONIO SEQUEIRA Versus MRS. RICARDINA EMILIA GUEDES DE ....Respondents ALMEIDA DE SILVA NORONHA (DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LEGAL HEIRS AND ORS Mr. S.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
WRIT PETITION NO. 625 OF 2006
PROF. MARIA ELSA NORONHA WOLFANGO DE SILVA (DECEASED) THROUGH HER LEGAL HEIR MR. ANTONIO SEQUEIRA
Versus
....Petitioner
MRS. RICARDINA EMILIA GUEDES DE ALMEIDA DE SILVA NORONHA (DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LEGAL HEIRS AND ORS
....Respondents
Mr. S. K. Kakodker, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Joel D' Souza, Advocate forthe Petitioner.
Ms. P. Kamat, Advocate for Respondent nos. 1(b), 2, 3, 6 & 7, LRs ofR.no. 4 & 5 (a, b, & i).
P.C.
-Coram:J. N. PATEL, J.
-Date:
27th December, 2006
Heard.
2. The petitioner/original plaintiff has taken exception to the Order dated20.12.2006, passed by the Trial Court. It is the contention of the plaintiffthat the issues have not been properly framed in the matter and it wouldprejudice the case of the plaintiff and, therefore, the issues deserve to bere-framed/re-casted as per the draft issues submitted.
3. This is a Supreme Court expedited matter. The whole controversyrests on the interpretation of the Will through which the parties areclaiming their respective rights. This Court finds that though according tothe plaintiff the issues framed by the trial Court are not happily worded,this may not be a reason for this Court to interfere in the matter. Theparties can proceed to lead their respective evidence as it will not be proper for this Court to interfere in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction atthis stage. Parties are well aware of the lis between them. Therefore,there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed.
Expedite authenticated copy.
arp/*
J. N. PATEL, J.