AGNELO VAZ Vs. EUGENIA HELENA VAZ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. By consent of the parties made returnable and heard.

(2.) THIS petition takes exception to the order dated 23. 06. 2009 passed by the 1st Additional Civil Judge, Senior division, Margao, by which application No. 106 and 107 filed by the petitioner herein came to be rejected.

(3.) SUCH of the facts which are necessary to be cited are stated thus: the petitioner is the original plaintiff no. 1 (d) who has filed a suit for declaration and injunction, being Special Civil suit No. 218/1990/b. The respondents herein are the original defendants, out of which, the respondent no. 4 herein is the main contesting defendant in the said suit. The said suit proceeded to trial and at the relevant time, the petitioner/plaintiff was under cross examination. From the roznama, it is disclosed that the petitioner's cross examination started sometime in March, 2008. Thereafter, the cross examination was delayed on account of one reason or the other but principally on the ground that adjournments were sought on behalf of the plaintiff. Ultimately on 13. 11. 2008, which was the day the suit had come up on board, it was submitted to the Court that the plaintiff intends to withdraw the suit and therefore, the said suit came to be adjourned to 20. 11. 208. Thereafter on two subsequent dates, time was sought on behalf of the plaintiff and on 10. 12. 2008, the Trial Court gave a last and final opportunity to the plaintiff and adjourned the matter to 09. 01. 2009 and on 09. 01. 2009 as no witness of the plaintiff was present, the Trial Court has recorded that the plaintiff has no interest in the prosecution of the case and hence closed the evidence of the plaintiff. The plaintiff aggrieved by the said order passed by the Trial Court on 09. 01. 2009 moved an application on 14. 02. 2009 for setting aside the said order dated 09. 01. 2009. In the said application it was inter alia mentioned that on account of the communication gap between the plaintiff no. 2 and the Advocate on record, a statement was made to the Court that this suit is likely to be withdrawn. It is stated in the application that the other plaintiff was not interested in withdrawal of the suit and the decision therefore, for withdrawal was that of plaintiff no. 2 only.