MARIA EMILIA BARRETO MASCARENHAS Vs. SUSHMA RUZAR FERNANDES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Usgaonkar, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners. None present for the respondents. Perused the records.

(2.) In fact, when initial notice was issued to the respondents, they were duly served in the matter but none had appeared even at the time when the matter was fixed for hearing at the admission of the petition. Thereafter, the notices were issued specifically directing that the matter would be heard finally at the admission stage itself and they were duly served, yet none has appeared on behalf of the respondents. It appears that the respondents are not interested in contesting the proceedings.

(3.) The grievance of the petitioners is against the order dated 19th September, 2004 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior division, Quepem, in Regular Civil Suit No. 67/2003/a. It is the contention of the petitioners that the trial court not only exceeded its jurisdiction while ordering impleadment of the respondent No. 3 as party defendant to the suit but allowed the impleadment on wrong assumption that she had a mundkarial right to the suit house without ascertaining whether she has any declaration in her favour in that regard from the competent authority under the Goa Mundkars (Protection from Eviction) Act, and without arriving at any finding as regards the absolute necessity of presence of the respondent No. 3 for final disposal of the dispute between the petitioners and the remaining respondents in the said suit.