AGNELO FRANCISCO XAVIER DE MARIA MASCARENHAS, SON OF LATE ZEFERINO MASCARENHAS Vs. DICKSON DELFINO ALMEIDA ALIAS DICSON ROQUE LEANDRO ALMEIDA, SON OF DELFINAO SACRAFAMILIA ALMEIDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents no.1, 11 & 12 waives service.

(2.) This petition takes exception to the order dated 12/08/2016 passed by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Margao pursuant to which the learned Judge allowed the application for the restoration of the suit and set aside the order dated 30/01/2015 dismissing the suit and by invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) Shri R.G. Ramani, learned Advocate came to be heard on behalf of the petitioners who submitted that the suit was filed by the respondent no.1 and alongwith it he had disclosed his address not only in the cause title but in the memo of address apart from setting it out in the plaint. The issues were framed by the Trial Court which were re-cast on 21/11/2014 and on which date there was none present on his behalf. The matter was listed for evidence on 10/12/2014 and at which time too there was none present on behalf of the plaintiff including the plaintiff himself. The matter was referred to the Lok Adalat on 13/12/2014 and at that time too the respondent no.1 plaintiff was absent. The suit was relegated to the Trial Court and on 30/01/2015, the same was called out before the Trial Court when it came to be dismissed for default of the respondent no.1 plaintiff. An application was filed by his attorney for restoration of the suit which came to be restored by the impugned order. The address of the attorney was given as Comba, Margao while the notice of withdrawal given by the advocate showed that it was addressed to one Gangadhar and not the respondent no.1. He adverted to his reply and submitted that the manner in which the notice was issued was itself dubious. In any event the impugned order suffered from the vice of illegality and therefore it was a fit case to quash and set it aside.