WENCESLAUS FERNANDES AND ANR v. DIAGO JOAO DSOUZA AND ANR
MCA/287/2024 · 2025-09-25
Shri Valmiki Menezes
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 35418 (BOM) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 35418 (BOM) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
MCA 287 of 2024 Meena IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA MISC.CIVIL APPLICATION NO.287 OF 2024 WENCESLAUS FERNANDES AND ANR ... APPLICANTS Versus DIAGO JOAO DSOUZA AND ANR ... RESPONDENTS Mr. Nigel da Costa Frias with Ms S. Nishad, Advocates for the Applicants. Ms. Amira Razaq, Advocate for the Respondents. (through V.C.) CORAM:- VALMIKI MENEZES, J. DATED :- 25th September, 2025 P.C.:
1. This is an application for condonation of delay of an Appeal challenging an order dated 23.09.2023 passed by the Civil Court. 2. The impugned order dated 23.09.2023 granting a temporary injunction against the Defendants was initially challenged before the District Court with a delay of 3 months and 18 days. The pecuniary value of the Appeal filed before the District Court was Rs.45,00,000/-, which was way beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of that Court to entertain the appeal. The correct course to be adopted at that stage by the District Court was to return the appeal memo along with the application for condonation of delay for want of pecuniary 25th September, 2025
MCA 287 of 2024 jurisdiction. 3. Instead of returning the memo of appeal, the District Court entertained the application for condonation of delay, and on a No Objection granted by the Respondent, condoned the delay and retained the appeal with itself until 16.04.2024, when it dismissed the appeal. Here again, the District Court ought to have returned the memo of appeal for want of pecuniary jurisdiction but instead had chosen to dismiss the appeal. 4. The appeal that has now been filed before this Court has been lodged within three days of the dismissal of the appeal before the District Court on the ground of lack of pecuniary jurisdiction. Almost two years were spent by the parties before the Court, which inherently lacked jurisdiction since the value of the appeal was Rs.45,00,000/-. It is not material as to what was time spent in the District Court for the reasons that the District Court chose to entertain an appeal which had no pecuniary jurisdiction to otherwise address. 5. For this reason, the appeal of 482 days stands condoned. The appeal shall be registered by the Registry and place for admission on
12.11.2025. Page 2 of 3 25th September, 2025
MCA 287 of 2024
6. The application stands disposed of.
VALMIKI MENEZES, J. 25th September, 2025 Signed by: MEENA VISHAL BHOIR Designation: Private Secretary Date: 26/09/2025 17:29:30