Bombay High Court
WP/349/2002 of SHRI EVARISTO REMEDIOS SEQUEIRA,VASCO-DA-GAMA. Vs SMT.CARMEN TEREZA CONCEICAO E FURTADO AND ORS., on 5 December 2002
THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO.349 OF 2002 Shri Evaristo Remedios Sequeira, s/o Manuelin Sequeira alias Manuel Sequeira, aged about 63 years, pensioner, residing at Baina,Vasco Da Gama................................
WRITPETITION NO.349 OF 2002
Shri EvaristoRemediosSequeira, s/oManuelinSequeiraaliasManuelSequeira, aged about 63years, pensioner, residingatBaina,VascoDaGama................................ PETITIONERVersus
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.
1. Smt. CarmenTerezaConceicao e Furtado,major,married,housewife, residing atH.No. 36, Baina, VascoDa Gama,Goa.;2. Peter Furtado,s/oSantan Furtado, major,residing atBaina,Vasco Da Gama;3. The Inquiry Officer,City Survey, Vasco DaGama;4. Elisbao Pereira and hiswife5. Maria Rayon Pereira,both r/o Pereira House,Mangor Hill, Vasco DaGama;6. Addl. CivilJudge,Senior Division, VascoDa Gama ................... RESPONDENTS----- Mr. V.R. Tamba and Mr. A.J. Fernandes, Advocates forthe Petitioner.Mr. R.G. Ramani, Advocate for the Respondent No.2.Mr. H.D. Naik, Addl. Government Advocate for theRespondent No.3.
-----
ORALJUDGMENT
DATED: DECEMBER 5, 2002
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith byconsent.
Heard the learned Counsel for thePetitioner as well as the Respondents.
2. The Petitioner has come with a casethat he was denied the opportunity to cross-examinethe witness in the course of the suit and could notgather the antecedents of the witness because theAffidavit of the witness was provided to the Counselof the Petitioner on that very day and hence there isgross failure of justice when the learned trial Judgedenied the opportunity to him to cross-examine on thenext day by adjourning the matter by one day. Inview of this position, the Order dated 8-10-2002 issought to be set aside.
3. After hearing all the parties, I amsatisfied that it is not in dispute that theAffidavit of the witness was provided to the party onthat very day and the Counsel of the Petitioner wasexpected to cross-examine the witness on the basis ofthe said Affidavit. The grounds mentioned by the learned trial Judge denying the request of thePetitioner to adjourn the matter to at least one dayappear to be insufficient. In my considered view,though it is true that the suit was expedited matter,grant of one day’s time would not have presented anydifficulty for the learned trial Judge to adjudicatethe dispute as per the directions of the superiorCourt, expeditiously. In other words, rejection ofthe Petitioner’s application for adjournment for oneday has resulted in failure of justice and,therefore, without further elaboration, I am inclinedto allow the Petition.
4. Hence the Petition is hereby allowed.The impugned Order stands set aside. Rule is madeabsolute. Both the parties are directed to appearbefore the learned trial Judge on 16th December,2002at 10.30 A.M. to get the next date fixed for thepurpose of further proceedings.
Authenticated copy is allowed.
P.V. KAKADE,J.
ac.