SURESH RAJARAM ANULEKAR Vs. STATE OF GOA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the above Writ Petitions were taken up together as it was not disputed by the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties that the issues involved in both the Writ Petitions are identical. Heard Mr. C.A. Ferreira, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners in both the petitions, Ms. P. Kamat, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents No. 1 to 3 and Mr. A. Kakodkar, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 4.

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

(3.) Upon hearing the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties, the short point for consideration in the above Writ Petitions is whether the learned Judge by passing an order allowing the respondent No. 4 to be impleaded in the suit filed by the petitioners has acted in excess of its jurisdiction, which would call for interference by this Court. The other order challenged in the present petitions is an order dated 15/11/2014, whereby an application filed by the petitioners to recall the said order dated 2/07/2014 came to be dismissed.