[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Ana Brigida De Souza, Thr. Her Duly ... vs Marian Elizabeth Hankins on 19 January, 2026
Andreza
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
WRIT PETITION NO. 705 OF 2024
Ana Brigida De Souza, Thr. Her Duly const. ...Petitioner
Attorney, Cheryl Ann Menezes
Versus
Marian Elizabeth Hankins ...Respondent
Mr. J. E. Coelho Pereira, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sagar
Rivankar, V. ?Braganza and Mr. Jeet Volvoikar, Advocates for the
Petitioner.
Mr. J. J. Mulgaonkar, Advocate with Ms. Shweta Parulekar and
Ms. Rutuja Prabhudessai, Advocates for the Respondent.
CORAM: DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J.
DATED : 19th JANUARY, 2026
P.C.
1. By way of this Petition, the Petitioner assails the Judgment and
Order dated 27.08.2024 passed by the learned Adhoc District Judge
(FTC-1), North Goa, at Mapusa, passed in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 75 of
2023.
2. By Order dated 10.07.2023, the Court of Civil Judge Junior
Division, 'C' Court at Bicholim, in Regular Civil Suit No. 10/2023/C
dismissed the application for temporary injunction made by the present
Respondent. The Respondent i.e. the original Plaintiff preferred an
appeal before the learned Adhoc District Judge (FTC-1), North Goa, at
Mapusa, by filing Misc. Civil Appeal No. 75 of 2023. By the impugned
19th January, 2026
Judgment and Order, the learned Adhoc District Judge, partly allowed
the Misc. Civil Appeal and restrained the Defendant i.e. the Petitioner
herein from evicting the Plaintiff i.e. the Respondent herein from the
suit house without following the due process of law. Further, the
Respondent was directed not to keep animals except two dogs which
she had at the initial time in the suit house and remove all other
animals from the said house within a period of 30 days from the date of
the Order. It is this Order which is assailed in the present Writ
Petition.
3. Heard Mr. J. E. Coelho Pereira, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. J. Mulgaonkar, learned Counsel
appearing for the Respondent. I have also gone through the record of
the proceedings with their assistance.
4. Mr. Coelho Pereira, submits that there is a counter claim filed by
the Petitioner before the Civil Judge, Junior Division in Regular Civil
Suit No. 10/2023/C seeking mesne profits and eviction of the
Respondent from the suit premises. Since the Order passed by the Civil
Judge in the interim application moved by the Respondent i.e. the
original Plaintiff has simply refused to restrain the Petitioner from
dispossessing the Respondent by way of an interim injunction, the
Adhoc District Judge in the Misc. Civil Appeal, has directed the
19th January, 2026
Petitioner to not evict the Respondent without following the due
process of law.
5. Considering both the orders passed by the Trial Court as well as
the First Appellate Court, I am of the view that the interests of justice
will be sub served if the Court of Civil Judge, Bicholim, concludes the
trial of Regular Civil Suit no. 10/2023/C within a period of three
months from the date on which the present order is communicated to
the Trial Court. At this stage, learned Counsel for the Petitioner informs
me that the said Court is vacant at the moment. Hence, the Trial Court
in charge of the said Court is directed to conclude the trial of Regular
Civil Suit no. 10/2023/C within a period of three months from the date
on which the present Order is communicated to the said Court. It is
ordered accordingly.
6. Mr. Coelho has brought to my attention the Order passed by the
FRRO, New Delhi, extraditing the Respondent from India. It is clear
from the said Order that the Respondent was issued an exit permit and
was deported to her country i.e. the UK, on the grounds that she
overstayed in India, without legal documents permitting her stay in
India.
19th January, 2026
Mr. Mulgaonkar, on the other hand, albeit admitting that the
Respondent is in UK, however submitted that she travelled to the UK
on her own volition for medical reasons.
Be that as it may, the situation remains that as on date and for
the past few months, the subject premises are not occupied by the
Respondent. Mr. Mulgaonkar concedes this fact, however, submits that
there is a caretaker appointed by the Respondent to reside in the
premises.
7. In view of the aforesaid, the Nazir of the Court of Civil Judge,
Junior Division, 'C' Court at Bicholim, is directed to take possession of
the said premises within a period of one week from the date on which
this Order is communicated to him and keep the said premises under
his care and custody and secure the property. For that purpose, he is at
liberty to take the assistance of the SHO of the Mapusa Police Station.
8. According to Mr Mulgaonkar, there are articles and belongings of
the Respondent in the said property.
9. The Nazir is directed to make an inventory of all the articles and
belongings in the said property, make four copies of the same, giving
one copy to each of the parties, maintain one in the proceedings of this
Court and retain another copy with himself in his own office. Without
prejudice to the contentions of both parties and as an ad hoc
19th January, 2026
arrangement, the Respondent is also directed to deposit an amount of
Rs. 3,00,000/-, towards the arrears of rent as calculated by Mr Coelho
Pereira. The said amount will be deposited with the Nazir/Court
Receiver, appointed in this Order. He is directed to keep the said
money/amount in a fixed deposit for a tenure of six months with any
Nationalised Bank.
10. Liberty is left open to the Respondent to make an application to
the Trial Court to enter the premises in case the Respondent, during
the pendency of the trial, comes to India. The Trial Court is to decide
the said application, if any, on its own merits without being
influenced/affected by the observations in this order.
11. All contentions of the parties are left open before the Trial Court.
12. Petition is disposed of accordingly.
DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J
19th January, 2026
