JAIDEV YESHWANT NAIK Vs. PRABHAVATI PUNDALIK USKAIKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE . The learned Counsel for the respondents waives notice. By consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, heard forthwith.

(2.) BY this petition, the petitioner takes exception to the Order dated 18.2.2005 passed by the IInd Ad hoc Additional District Judge, Panaji in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 92/2004. The petitioners are the original plaintiffs in Regular Civil Suit No. 116/04/B, pending before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Panaji and the respondents are the original defendants. The parties shall be, hereinafter, referred to as the plaintiffs and the defendants, respectively.

(3.) AGGRIEVED by the impugned order passed by the learned Lower Appellate Court, the plaintiffs have filed the present petition. Mr. Mulgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the Lower Appellate Court has not exercised the jurisdiction in accordance with law. The learned Counsel further submitted that the Lower Appellate Court has neither dealt with the pleadings of the parties nor with the reasonings given by the Trial Court while passing the impugned order. Mr. Mulgaonkar further submitted that the Appellate Court while modifying the order passed by the Trial Court ought to have given the reasons as to why it found the reasons given by the Trial Court untenable in law, Mr. Mulgaonkar has placed reliance on the following two judgments of the Apex Court : Wander Ltd. and Anr. v. Antox India P. Ltd. ; and Sree Jain Swetambar Terapanthi Vid (S) v. Phandan Singh and Ors. : [1999]1SCR498 , Placing reliance on the two judgments of the Apex Court, Mr. Mulgaonkar has submitted that the Lower Appellate Court has exercised the jurisdiction contrary to the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the said two judgments and on this count only, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.