(1) wp-481-2025.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO.481 OF 2025 WITH MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2298 OF 2026 (F) AND MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2299 OF 2026 (F) IN WRIT PETITION NO.481 OF 2025 SHRI LASSU ALIAS LASU BAGDO VELIP (SINCE DECEASED) AND ORS VERSUS COMMUNIDADE OF AGONDA AND ORS. … Mr. Sudin Usgaonkar, Senior Advocate with Ms. Tanisha Mashelkar, Advocate for Petitioners. Mr. Ajay Menon, Advocate for Respondent No.9. … CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J. DATED : 25th AUGUST, 2026. FINAL ORDER :- 1. The petitioners raises limited challenge to order dated 04.02.2025 passed below Exhibit-145 by Civil Judge Junior Division at Canacona, Goa in Regular Civil Suit No.40/2013, thereby directing return of plaint and seeks modification to include direction to return entire proceeding of the suit alongwith plaint. 2. The petitioners had instituted Regular Civil Suit No.40/2005 for declaration, injunction and correction of survey record being co-owners of suit properties, more particularly specified in plaint against, Communidade of Agonda, its Administrator and others. The defendant nos.7 and 8 filed application under Order VII Rules 10, 11 r/w Section 2026:BHC-GOA:1721 (2) wp-481-2025.odt 26 of Goa Civil Courts Acts contending that since Administrator of Communidade/Officer appointed by Government has supervising authority on affairs of defendant no.1 and he is made party, suit is barred under Section 26 of Civil Courts Act before Civil Judge Junior Division. Despite pendency of aforesaid application, suit proceeded, evidence of parties was recorded. At this stage, impugned order is passed, on application Exhibit-145 and plaint is ordered to be returned invoking Order VII Rule 10 for presentation before Competent Court. 3. The petitioners contend that application for return of plaint is entertained at fag end of suit proceeding, when suit had substantially progressed and evidence was partially recorded, which has resulted in serious prejudice to petitioners. It was expected to return plaint alongwith entire Suit file with direction to proceed from stage at which it is returned. 4. Mr. Sudin Usgaonkar, learned Senior Advocate appearing for petitioners submits that Apex Court in case of Joginder Tuli Vs. S. L. Bhatia and Anothers1, dealt with similar situation and affirmed order passed by High Court directing District Judge to proceed from stage at which suit stood transferred to District Court, particularly looking to fact that evidence was already adduced by parties. However, Mr. Usgaonkar in usual fairness invites attention of this Court to latest judgment of Supreme Court in case of EXL Careers and Another Vs. 1 (1997) 1 SCC 502. (3) wp-481-2025.odt Frankfinn Aviation Services (Private) Limited2, wherein after considering conflict in between Joginder Tuli (supra) and ONGC Limited Vs. M/s. Modern Construction and Co.3 referred matter to Larger Bench. Accordingly, Larger Bench answered reference approving law laid down in case of Modern Construction (supra) with observation in paragraph no.20, which reads thus: “The statutory scheme now becomes clear. In cases dealing with transfer of proceedings from a Court having jurisdiction to another Court, the discretion vested in the Court by Sections 24(2) and 25(3) either to retry the proceedings or proceed from the point at which such proceeding was transferred or withdrawn, is in marked contrast to the scheme under Order VII Rule 10 read with Rule 10-A where no such discretion is given and the proceeding has to commence de novo.” 5. Mr. Ajay Menon, learned Advocate appearing for respondents invites attention of this Court to decisions rendered by Hon’ble Single Judges of this Court in case of Aj Organica Private Limited and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others4 and Sunrise Biscuit Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Oriental Insurance Company5, wherein legal position as set out by Larger Bench in case of EXL Careers and Another (supra) has been restated and explained. 6. In light of aforesaid backdrop, this Court finds that petitioners’ contentions to direct return of plaint with entire proceeding to proceed from stage of suit on date of return of plaint cannot be countenanced. In result Writ Petition sans merit. Hence, dismissed. 2 (2021) 13 SCC 215. 3 (2014) 1 SCC 648. 4 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 640. 5 2024 SCC OnLine 1135. (4) wp-481-2025.odt 7. In view of dismissal of Writ Petition, pending Civil Application stands disposed of. (S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR) JUDGE Devendra/August-2026