COMMUNIDADE OF PILERNE Vs. STATE OF GOA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard by consent.

(2.) The petitioner has challenged two Orders, both dated 5th June, 2007. By the first impugned order, the trial Court has merely stated that the petitioner's objection will be considered at the stage of appreciation of evidence. The petitioner had objected on the ground that certain statements have been made by the defendants which are beyond the scope of the pleadings. One can see nothing wrong in the decision of the trial Court to consider whether the statements in evidence are beyond the scope of the pleadings at the stage of appreciation of evidence. This order was passed by the trial Court on an application with the title

(3.) Mr. Kamat relied on a decision of this court in (Haren Krishnakumar Mehta Vs. Kamla Pribhdas Nebhanani) , reported in 2001 (2) Bom. C. R. (O. S. ) 678 : 2001 (2) Mh. L. J. 45 : 2001 (2) All. M. R. 67 : 2001 (1) Bom. L. R. 228 : A. I. R. 2001 Bombay 187 in which this court has held that a party who has tendered evidence beyond the pleadings need not be cross-examined by the other party in that regard. This judgment has no relevance to the prayer of the petitioner in this case. The observations were made by the learned single Judge at the stage of final hearing of the suit which is precisely what the trial court intends to do in the present case.