CAPISTRANO GOMES Vs. STATE OF GOA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Initially, the applicant/petitioner filed Writ Petition No.23 of 2015 challenging the order 3/1/2015 whereby the application filed by the petitioner/applicant under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint was dismissed by the trial Court. Vide order dtd. 15/6/2015 in MCA/349/2015, the Writ Petition was converted into Civil Revision Application and was, accordingly, registered. Thereafter, the matter was taken up for final disposal. However, vide order dtd. 10/7/2015 revision was admitted and the hearing was expedited.

(2.) Heard learned senior counsel Shri Nitin Sardessai alongwith Shri Vibhav Amonkar for the applicant, Shri Faldessai, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent no.1. None appeared for the other respondents.

(3.) Shri Nitin Sardessai would submit that the application for rejection of the plaint was filed on two counts. Firstly, it does not show the cause of action and consequently, it is barred by limitation. He would submit that the plaint shows no cause of action for filing the suit, i.e. right to sue on a particular and specific right accruing in favour of the plaintiff. Secondly, he claimed that even if it is considered that such right accrued to the plaintiff, it first accrued in the year 2002 itself and, therefore, the suit filed in the year 2012 is hopelessly barred. He would submit that the applicant/defendant purchased the suit property vide a sale deed and, accordingly, applied for the inclusion of his name under Sec. 14 of the Land Revenue Code. The defendant specifically made averments before the Deputy Collector in Land Revenue Code Case No.LRC/GDL/MAR/1/2022 that the property was purchased by the plaintiff vide sale deed dtd. 15/5/2002 from Mr Anthony Mathias and others and put in possession of the property bearing Survey No.194/2-B alongwith the house existing therein. Since the survey was promulgated and the name of the predecessor-in-title of the plaintiff is not appearing and the name of the respondent herein was erroneously recorded, the matter was filed under Sec. 14(3) of the Land Revenue Code to delete the name of the present respondent no.1 and to include the name of the applicant.