DELIA DSOUZA Vs. ARCHIBALD DSOUZA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Shri A.F. Diniz, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Shri S. Narvekar, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents.

(2.) RULE . Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents waives service.

(3.) THE above petition challenges an order passed by the learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Mapusa dated 16/11/2012 in Regular Civil Suit No.95/2008 whereby an application for adjournment filed by the petitioner came to be rejected and the evidence of the petitioners/plaintiffs came to be closed. Shri A.F. Diniz, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners has pointed out that on the relevant date, the petitioners were seeking the third adjournment as the petitioners were abroad and had not made the necessary arrangement to ensure the presence of the expert who was due to be examined. The learned Counsel further pointed out that the petitioners had also constituted an attorney to look after their interest in Goa during their absence but according to them on the said date the said attorney also had to proceed abroad. The learned Counsel further pointed out that on account of such unavoidable circumstance the petitioners were forced to seek an adjournment on the said date which the learned Judge refused to grant and consequently closed the evidence of the petitioners.