(1) wp-811-2026.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO.811 OF 2026 NATALINA M. RODRIGUES VERSUS SHRI. ROQUE PERPETUA FROIS AND ORS. … Ms. Maria Viegas, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. Vandit Joshi (through V.C.) Advocate for Respondent No.2. Mr. Dinesh Naik, Advocate for Respondent No.5. Ms. Maurisa Aquina Monteira, Advocate for Respondent No.6. … CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J. RESERVED ON : 24th SEPTEMBER, 2026. PRONOUNCED ON : 30th SEPTEMBER, 2026. FINAL ORDER :- 1. The petitioner impugns order dated 13.11.2025 passed by Ad-hoc District Judge-1, Merces, Tiswadi, Goa in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No.75/2024 as well as order dated 12.09.2019 passed by Civil Judge Junior Division, ‘C’ Court, Panaji in Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 40/2017/C in RCS No. 55/2000/C, thereby dismissing petitioner’s application for condonation of delay caused in filing application for setting aside ex-parte decree dated 07.03.2017. 2. The respondent no.1 filed Regular Civil Suit No.55/2000/C before Civil Judge Junior Division at Panaji claiming relief of mandatory and permanent injunction against petitioner. On 29.09.2010, suit was decreed. The petitioner challenged decree in Regular Civil Appeal No.460/2010 before District Court, North Goa, who allowed Appeal and remanded matter back to Trial Court with direction to 2026:BHC-GOA:1946 (2) wp-811-2026.odt appoint surveyor. On 07.03.2017, ex-parte judgment and decree came to be passed in suit. As soon as petitioner got knowledge of decree, she filed application for setting aside ex-parte decree alongwith Civil Miscellaneous Application No.40/2017/C seeking condonation of delay. The Trial Court refused to condone delay and dismissed Civil Miscellaneous Application No.40/2017/C. The petitioner filed Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No.75/2024 before District Judge, North Goa, which came to be rejected by impugned order dated 13.11.2025. 3. Heard learned Advocates appearing for respective parties. 4. The record indicates that learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Panaji passed ex-parte judgment and decree dated 07.03.2017 in Regular Civil Suit No.55/2000/C. The petitioner filed application for setting aside ex-parte decree on 16.05.2017 alongwith application seeking condonation of delay. The petitioner asserted date of knowledge of ex-parte decree as 23.03.2017. As such, there is delay of about 38 days in filing application. The petitioner explained aforesaid delay contending that petitioner was prosecuting two suits i.e. Regular Civil Suit No.55/2000/C and Regular Civil Suit No.135/1999. She had engaged Advocate B. Prabhu Dessai. Mr. Prabhu Dessai withdrawn his appearance. Then petitioner approached Advocate M. Silveira. While handing over documents to him, she furnished documents pertaining to Regular Civil Suit No.135/1999 to Mr. Silveira. The papers relating to (3) wp-811-2026.odt Regular Civil Suit No.55/2000/C were inadvertently not given to him. Further, there was communication gap between her and Advocate Silveira. On 23.03.2017, when petitioner approached Advocate Silveira and solicited information regarding Regular Civil Suit No.55/2000/C, she came to know that Advocate Silveira was not following Court proceeding in Regular Civil Suit No.55/2000/C since May 2016. Eventually, suit was decreed ex-parte. On 24.03.2017, Advocate M. Silveira applied for certified copies. However, she was engaged in her personal work and collected certified copies on 24.04.2017. Thereafter, petitioner took steps for filing application for setting aside ex-parte decree. 5. The Trial Court was of the view that aforesaid explanation was not sufficient to condone delay and by relying upon observations of Supreme Court in case of Basawaraj Vs. Land Acquisition Officer1 refused to condone delay. The Court observed that petitioner’s Advocate could have easily obtained status of suit through CIS system and there is no justification for belatedly applying for certified copies and further collecting same a month thereafter. The Trial Court observed that conduct of petitioner was lethargic and delay was not bonafide. 6. This Court finds that aforesaid reasons recorded in impugned order are hyper-technical in nature. The petitioner is lady and litigating 1 (2013) 14 SC 81. (4) wp-811-2026.odt in respect of immovable property. She was dependent upon services provided by Advocate. Due to withdrawal of appearance of Advocate B. Prabhu Dessai, she availed services of another Advocate. The communication gap between petitioner and Advocate engaged resulted into delay of 38 days in filing application for setting aside ex-parte decree. 7. Perusal of record nowhere indicates that delay was intentional or petitioner could have drawn any advantage by making delay. Even assuming that, there was some laxity on part of petitioner to take diligent steps that itself cannot be reasons to refuse application for condonation of delay of approximately 38 days. It is true that, respondents must have suffered inconvenience and for that they can be appropriately compensated. In result, Writ Petition deserves to be allowed subject to certain conditions. Hence, following order: ORDER a. Writ Petition is allowed. b. The impugned order dated 13.11.2025 passed by Ad-hoc District Judge-1, Merces, Tiswadi, Goa in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No.75/2024 as well as order dated 12.09.2019 passed by Civil Judge Junior Division, ‘C’ Court, Panaji, in Civil Miscellaneous Application No.40/2017/C in Regular Civil suit No.55/2000/C are quashed and set aside. (5) wp-811-2026.odt c. Civil Miscellaneous Application No.40/2017/C is allowed subject to cost of Rs.10,000/- to be paid to respondents/original plaintiffs within period of four weeks from date of this order. In case of failure to deposit cost within stipulated period, order dated 12.09.2019 passed by Civil Judge Junior Division, ‘C’ Court, Panaji shall govern proceeding. d. Delay of 38 days caused in filing application for setting aside ex- parte decree is condoned. The Trial Court shall decide petitioner’s application for setting aside ex-parte decree on its own merits within period of three months from today. (S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR) JUDGE Devendra/September-2026