Bombay High Court
CRA/169/2001 of ANTONIO BRAGANZA and ANR. Vs PEDRO JOAO BRAGANZA and ORS. on 5 December 2002
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA. CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 169 OF 2001. 1. Antonio Braganca, r/at H. No. E-17, Bondir, St. Cruz, Ilhas, Goa. 2. Mrs. Sebastiana Pegado Braganca, r/at H.No. E-17, Bondir, St. Cruz, Ilhas, Goa. ... Applicants. Versus 1. Pedro Joao Braganza, r/at H. No. 1047, Premeiro
CIVILREVISION APPLICATION NO. 169 OF 2001.
1. Antonio Braganca, r/at
H. No. E-17, Bondir,
St. Cruz, Ilhas, Goa.
2. Mrs. Sebastiana Pegado
Braganca, r/at H.No. E-17,
Bondir, St. Cruz, Ilhas, Goa.
... Applicants.
Versus1. Pedro Joao Braganza,
r/at H. No. 1047,
Premeiro Bairo,
Santa Cruz, Ilhas, Goa.
2. Mrs. Cesaria Braganza,
r/at H. No. 1047,
Premeiro Bairo,
Santa Cruz, Ilhas, Goa.
3. Mario Antonio Braganca,
r/at H. No. 1047,
Santa Cruz, Ilhas, Goa.
4. The Madgaum Urban Co-operative
Bank Ltd., Panaji Branch,
M.G. Road, Panaji, Goa.
5. Unit Trust of India Ltd.,
c/o UTI Investor Services
Limited, Post Bag No.
37542, Plot No. 369,
Marol Maroshi Road,
Near Marol Maroshi Bus
Depot, Vijay Nagar,
Andheri (East), Mumbai.
... Respondents.Coram: P.V. HARDAS, J.Date: 5th December 2002.
Mr. S.D. Lotlikar, Senior Advocate with Mr. A.D. Bhobe, Advocate for the Applicants.
Mr. E.P. Lobo, Advocate for the Respondents 1 and 2.
Mr. S.G. Dessai, Senior Advocate with Mr. M. Shirodkar, Advocate for the Respondent No. 3.
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.
ORAL JUDGMENT.
Heard Mr. Lotlikar, learned senior counsel for the applicants, Mr. Lobo, learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 and Mr. Dessai, learned senior counsel for the respondent no. 3.
2. Mr. Lotlikar, learned senior counsel for the applicants, states that this Civil Revision Application is not maintainable, in view of the amendment to Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure and, therefore, seeks to withdraw the same. He further states that the applicants desire to file appropriate proceedings in this Court.
3. This Civil Revision Application is, therefore, dismissed as withdrawn.
(P.V. HARDAS)
JUDGE.
ed’s.