MERWYN ANTHONY FERNANDES Vs. BRIAN LOUIS SEQUEIRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mrs. Agni, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rivonkar, learned Counsel for the respondents.

(2.) BY order dated 7th October, 2010, parties were put on notice that this petition may be disposed of finally at the admission stage. Hence, Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith.

(3.) THE plaintiffs led evidence in support of their case. It appears that initially at the time of filing written statement, the defendant did not rely upon any report of the expert. However, later on, he sought leave to produce the report of the expert Shri Sitakant Kamat, which was allowed and accordingly, the same was produced in course of his evidence. After the defendant led the evidence, the plaintiffs filed an application dated 26th August, 2010 seeking leave to produce the report and plan prepared by Shri S. A. Dhuri, Architect and Government Approved Valuer in order to prove that the defendant had carried out construction in the property of the plaintiffs. The said application was opposed by the defendant. By the impugned order dated 23rd September, 2010, the trial Court allowed the application. The trial Court held that since the plaintiffs were granted liberty to lead evidence in rebuttal and the defendant had examined Sitakant Kamat, Surveyor as DW2 and placed on record plan and report, the application seeking leave to produce the plan and report of Shri Dhuri, deserved to be allowed in order to rebut the evidence produced by the defendant. The trial Court held that no prejudice would be caused to the defendant if the application was allowed since the defendant would have ample opportunity to challenge the veracity and genuineness of the report and the plan.