Bombay High Court
Agnelo Joaquim Monteiro vs Jonnathan Pereira And Anr on 16 July, 2025
2025:BHC-GOA:1210
2025:BHC-GOA:1210
WP No.75-2025.docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
WRIT PETITION NO. 75 OF 2025
Mr. Agnelo Joaquim Monteiro
Son of late Pedro L.P. Monteiro
Major in age 67 years of age, married,
businessman, Indian National, R/o.
... PETITIONER
H.No. 236/C Machado Dalem Morod
Caranzalem, Ilhas, Goas
Versus
1. Mr. Jonnathan Pereira
Son of late Joseph F. Pereira
Major in age, businessman, bachelor
2. Mrs. Sonia Jema Pereira
Daughter of late Joseph F Pereira
Major in age, spinster
Both R/o. Arogya Mata, Flat No.10
3rd floor, Marinagar Mahim, Bombay
400 016
Both having alternate r/o. 21.355,
Mirabel Hotel, Opp. Cidade Goa, Dona....RESPONDENTS
Paula. Goa
1
::: Uploaded on - 16/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 16/07/2025 22:44:59 :::
WP No.75-2025.docx
Mr. Terence Vaz with Ms. Sampada Nishikant Poll, Advocate
for the Petitioner.
Ms. Ashwini Agni (Through VC) along with Mr. Junaid Shaikh,
Advocates for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
CORAM:- VALMIKI MENEZES, J.
RESERVED ON : 20TH JUNE, 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 16TH JULY,2025
ORAL JUDGMENT:
1. Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with the consent
of the parties.
3. This is a petition seeking direction to expedite the hearing
and disposal of Regular Civil Suit No. 96/2001/A(Old)
[Regular Civil Suit No. 120/2015/F(New)], before the Civil
Judge Junior Division at Panaji. The ground raised in the
WP No.75-2025.docx
petition is that the trial of the said suit has inordinately been
delayed by the Defendants and the suit has been pending for
about 24 years.
4. From the record of the Roznama and other proceedings,
which include a transfer application before the District Court
North Goa, the following facts undisputedly form part of the
record:
i. The Petitioner filed the Regular Civil Suit No.
96/2001/A(Old) [Regular Civil Suit No.
120/2015/F(New)] on 07.09.2001 for recovery of
money and other consequential reliefs seeking
decree for payment of amount due towards an
alleged loan which was advanced by the Petitioner
to the Defendants. Subsequently the Defendants
filed their Written Statement and Counter claim on
05.03.2002 and the Issues came to be framed on
07.12.2004.
WP No.75-2025.docx
ii. The Petitioner's examination in chief began on
29.11.2005 and was completed by 09.01.2008.
Thereafter his Cross examination commenced from
09.01.2008 which took more than 10 years to
complete until 13.03.2019. During this period the
Plaintiff has hardly sought any adjournments,
however from the Roznama, it appears that the
Defendants had adjourned the cross examination on
atleast 30 occasions.
iii. On 14.06.2019, the Defendants filed an Application
for amendment of the Written Statement and
Counter claim (Exh-D-72), 17 years after it being
filed. The Application took almost three years to
decide and was ultimately dismissed vide order
dated 30.04.2022. During these 3 years the
Defendants sought atleast 4 adjournments during
hearing of this application. This order dated
WP No.75-2025.docx
30.04.2022 dismissing the amendment application
was never challenged before a higher forum.
iv. During the pendency of the application for
amendment the Defendants filed an application
dated 16.06.2019 for recall and reopening the
Petitioner's evidence (Exh D-74) which also came
to be dismissed vide order dated 30.04.2022.T he
Defendants then filed two review applications dated
19.05.2022 Exhibited as Exhibit D-84 and Exhibit
D-85 with respect to orders passed on Exhibit D-72
and Exhibt-74 respectively. The review Application
under Exhibit D-84 was dismissed vide order dated
04.10.2022 and the review Application under
Exhibit D-85 was dismissed vide order dated
23.11.2022. Here again, there was no challenge to
the order dismissing the application for recall of the
witness.
WP No.75-2025.docx
v. The matter was then fixed for defendant's evidence
on 23.11.2022 however the examination in chief
commenced only on 20.03.2024 and ended on
31.08.2024, after atleast 6 adjournments by the
defendants. The Evidence of Defence witness No.2
was fixed on 16.10.2024 which has till date not
commenced and has been adjourned on atleast 5
occasions by the defendants till 07.07.2025; the
matter is now fixed on 23.07.2025 for recording the
deposition of the second witness for the Defence.
vi. During the course of recording the evidence of the
defendant, several applications, including an
application for production of additional documents,
correction of evidence of the defendant, framing of
additional issues etc. which were all dismissed by
imposing cost on the defendants.
WP No.75-2025.docx
5. On 09.04.2025 the Defendants filed a Transfer
Application CMA No.66/2025 in the Court of the Principal
District Judge North Goa, Panaji, alleging bias by the trial
Court, against them by imposing costs whenever any
application filed by the defendants was dismissed .Whilst this
Petition was pending, and pursuant to order dated 25.04.2025
of this Court directing the District Court to dispose of the
transfer application before 15.06.2025, the Principal District
Court at Panaji, dismissed the transfer application No. CMA
66/2025 vide order dated 05.06.2025 holding that the
defendants have not challenged any orders on merits. It also
held that the case is old and should be decided expeditiously;
Costs were imposed on the defendants due to their conduct.
The Transfer has attained finality for want of further challenge.
6. Learned Advocate Mr. Terrance Vaz, appearing for the
Petitioner, submits that the petitioner is a senior citizen; the
suit is pending for last 24 years and Defence witnesses are yet
WP No.75-2025.docx
to be examined. The Respondents are filing applications
intentionally to delay the matter and cause inconvenience to
the Petitioner. Mr.Vaz further submitted that the Respondents
are adding to the delay by seeking frivolous adjournments and
which appears to be a dilatory tactic adopted and he further
produced copy of the Roznama in the said suit.
7. Perusal of the Roznama and the various proceedings in
the transfer application before the District Court clearly make
out a case for directions to the trial Court to dispose of Regular
Civil Suit No.96/2001/A(Old) [Regular Civil Suit No.
120/2015/F(New)] in a time bound manner. I have heard Ms.
Ashwini Agni along with Mr. Junaid Shaikh who have assured
this Court that the evidence of the Defendant would be
completed without delay. The facts that can be culled out from
the proceedings sheets, clearly point to the dilatory tactics
being adopted by the Defendants, including by filing multiple
and frivolous review applications. The defence has only one
WP No.75-2025.docx
more witness to examine and there is no cause at this stage to
protract the trial of the suit any further. This Court, and the
Hon'ble supreme Court has been, from time to time issuing
directions to the trial Courts, especially those dealing with
matters which are over a decade old, in an expeditious manner,
to ensure their disposal.
8. This is a suit which was filed in the year 2001 and has by
now completed twenty five years, with the defence witness not
having been examined till now. The total number of
adjournments sought by the Defendants throughout this
period are more than 40 hearings. The conduct of the
Defendants is clearly of dilatory nature and justifies directions
being given by this Court, after recording the undertaking of
the defendants that they would cooperate with the trial Court
in expeditious disposal of the suit. Accordingly, the Civil Judge
Junior Division at Panaji dealing with Regular Civil Suit No.
96/2001/A(Old) [Regular Civil Suit No. 120/2015/F(New)], is
WP No.75-2025.docx
requested to complete the trial of the suit and dispose of the
same preferably by 30.09.2025.
9. Rule is made absolute in terms of the above directions.
VALMIKI MENEZES,J.
