Bombay High Court
Moreno Carlos Rebelo vs Goa State Election Commission, Thr. The ... on 27 November, 2025
2025:BHC-GOA:2334
2025:BHC-GOA:2334
906 WP 457-2025
Jose
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
WRIT PETITION NO.457 OF 2025
M/s SOVA
A Partnership Firm, having
its registered office at
Salgaocar Bhavan, Altinho,
Panaji - Goa 403001
Through its duly Authorized Partner
Mr. Subramany, Son of late Gopalappa,
62 years of age, having Office at
Salgaocar Bhavan, Altinho,
Panjim - Goa. ... Petitioner.
Versus
1. THE STATE OF GOA
Through the Chief Secretary, Secretariat,
Porvorim - Goa.
2. THE DIRECTOR OF MINES
Director of Mines and Geology,
having its Office at Institute
Menezes Braganza, Panaji - Goa
3. THE COLLECTOR
North Goa District Collectorate,
Collectorate Building,
Panaji, North - Goa. ... Respondents.
Mr. Vibhav Amonkar with Ms. Maria D'Costa, Ms. T.
Mashelkar, Ms. Sonam Dessai, Mr. Ravnak Mayekar and Mr.
Raj Chodankar, Advocates for the Petitioner.
Mr. Vishwadh Sardessai, Additional Government Advocate for
the State.
Page 1 of 5
27th November, 2025
::: Uploaded on - 27/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2025 21:57:49 :::
906 WP 457-2025
CORAM: VALMIKI MENEZES, J.
DATED: 27th November, 2025
ORAL JUDGMENT:
1. Registry to waive office objections and register the matter.
2. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent
of the parties, petition is disposed of finally.
3. This is a petition challenging an order dated 18.11.2025
rejecting an application at Exhibit D-17 on the file of the Adhoc
District Judge-2, Merces in Civil Suit No.12/2024. The application
for adjournment was sought on grounds that the Plaintiff was in the
process of preparing an application for amendment based on
documents and facts which came to the notice of the Plaintiff, during
the hearing of the arguments and the application for rejection of the
plaint. Though the application for adjournment sets out, what
according to the Plaintiff are detailed reasons for granting the
adjournment, in substance, this is an application requesting the
deferment of the arguments on the Order 7 Rule 11 application until
the amendment application at the behest of the Plaintiff, to
incorporate new facts into the plaint was filed and, according to the
Plaintiff is required to be considered before the arguments on the
application for rejection of plaint are heard.
27th November, 2025
906 WP 457-2025
4. On going through the entries in the Roznama, it appears that
the application for rejection of plaint was filed on 19.07.2025 though,
the Written Statement of the Defendant came to be filed after
condoning delay and taking it on record only on 20.08.2025.
Thereafter, since the earlier amendment application had been
granted, additional Written Statement came to be filed on 17.10.2025.
Though the stages would not be relevant for deciding the application
for rejection of plaint, for which the sole consideration is the
averments made in the plaint, it would suffice to record that at least
six hearings went by during August and October on these stages.
5. The arguments on the application for rejection of plaint, was on
04.11.2025 on which date, the Plaintiff had partly argued the matter
and on 14.11.2025, the Plaintiff sought time on an oral application and
on 18.11.2025, four days thereafter, sought yet another adjournment
which was rejected by the impugned order.
6. Considering that from the time the arguments commenced on
04.11.2025, the rejection of the application for adjournment on
18.11.2025, hardly two weeks had passed and the matter being part
heard, it may not have been justified on the part of the Trial Court to
reject the adjournment, more so since there are grounds set out
therein which have not been referred to at all in the impugned order.
All that the impugned order states is that since an ultimate
opportunity was given for the arguments and no arguments were
27th November, 2025
906 WP 457-2025
advanced on that date, the Plaintiff's arguments stand closed. The
matter is now listed on 01.12.2025 to hear the arguments of the
Defendant on the application under Order 7 Rule 11.
7. Considering these facts, I set aside the impugned order.
However, considering that the Plaintiff has sought two adjournments
on the plea that it would file an application for amendment, costs
would have to be borne by the Plaintiff which are quantified at
Rs.10,000/- to be deposited in the Registry of the District Court or
paid directly to the Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 or to the Advocate of the
Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 under receipt. This shall be a condition
precedent to allow the Plaintiff to continue arguments on the
application for rejection of plaint.
8. The Petitioner/original Plaintiff makes a statement that they
would serve an advance copy of an application for amendment of
plaint by 28.11.2025 on the Advocate who appears for Defendant Nos.
1 and 2 to enable him to file a reply, if any, by the next date of hearing
i.e. 01.12.2025 or any day that the Trial Court may fix for that
purpose. The Trial Court is requested to hear such amendment
application expeditiously and decide the same, and thereafter proceed
to hear the arguments on the application for rejection of plaint.
Needless to state, of course, that if the application for amendment is
allowed, the Defendants would be given an opportunity to file an
additional Written Statement.
27th November, 2025
906 WP 457-2025
9. Rule is made absolute in the above terms with the aforesaid
observations.
VALMIKI MENEZES, J.
27th November, 2025
