Bombay High Court
CRA/30/2003 of MRS.JESSUINA EFFIE DE SOUZA AND ANR., Vs MR. JOSE DIAS AND ANR., on 11 December 2003
COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 30 OF 2003 MRS.JESSUINA EFFIE DE SOUZA AND ....Petitioners ANR., Versus MR. JOSE DIAS AND ANR., ....Respondents SHRI NIGEL DA COSTA FRIAS,SHRI AGNELO F. DINIZ Coram:- A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. Date:- 11th December, 2003 P.C.: Heard. I find no reason
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
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 30 OF 2003
MRS.JESSUINA EFFIE DE SOUZA AND ANR.,
....Petitioners
Versus
MR. JOSE DIAS AND ANR.,
....Respondents
SHRI NIGEL DA COSTA FRIAS,SHRI AGNELO F. DINIZ
-Coram:A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.-Date:11th December, 2003
P.C.:Heard.I find no reason to interfere inexercise of writ jurisdiction,especially in view of the findingrecorded by the Court below inparagraph 5 of the impugned judgment.The Court below on analysing the plaint,has positively found that no damages orcompensation is claimed by the plaintiffagainst the defendant No.3. Thisfinding can be supported on readingparagraph 23 of the plaint. If that isso, the question of application ofSection 221 of the Goa Panchayat RajAct, 1994 will not arise.Learned counsel for the petitioner,however contends that the relief ascouched in the plaint in particularprayer clause (b) claims a Decree in the sum of Rs.3,00,000/- or such other sumas the Court may deem proper and fit,being damages for relief whichaccording to the petitioner is againstall the defendantes which includesdefendant No.3 and on that accountsection 223 is attracted. Thissubmission clearly overlooks theaverment made in paragraph 23 of theplaint that the plaintiff was claimingdamages only against defendants no.1 and2.Understood thus, there is no substancein this petition. Rejected.At this stage, learned counsel for thepetitioner, submits that any opinionexpressed in this decision may notinfluence the Trial Court whiledeciding issue no.8. Needless to mentionthat the Trial Court will decide thesuit which will include Issue No.8, onits own merit and in accordance withlaw.
A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.