PRAMILA VASSANT SHETKAR Vs. CABIDO DE SE PRIMACIAL OF CATHEDRAL CHAPTER OF ARCHDIOCESE OF GOA AND DAMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Shri Valmiki Menezes, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners.

(2.) RULE. Heard forthwith.

(3.) SHRI Valmiki Menezes, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners has pointed out that the Petitioners have never sought any adjournment and that on the relevant date, the Advocate appearing for the Petitioners was present at 11.30 a.m. before the learned Judge but the witness was absent but, however, as he had to attend the funeral, he had to leave the Court and, as such, when the matter was called out at 12 O'Clock, the Petitioners requested for an adjournment which came to be refused. Learned Counsel further pointed out that an application was filed by the Petitioner to recall the said Order which was refused by impugned Order dated 15.12.2011. Learned Counsel further pointed out that on account of unexpected reasons, the Advocate for the Petitioners was not able to conduct the cross and, as such, the Petitioners cannot be penalised for any such default on the part of the Advocate. Learned Counsel further points out that the fact that the Advocate for the Petitioners had to attend a funeral on the said date of one of the relative of the Court staff has not been disputed by the Respondent. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the learned Judge has acted with material irregularity whilst passing the impugned Order and, as such, the Petitioners should be allowed to cross examine Dw. 2 and Dw.3 and that the impugned Order be quashed and set aside. Learned Counsel further brought to my notice that the Petitioner had deposited costs of Rs.5,000/- as condition precedent before issuing notice to the Respondents and though the Respondents were duly served, they failed to remain present.