MCA 350.2026 6th August, 2026 Sonam IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 350 OF 2026 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 634 OF 2024 Mr. H. Humkichand Jain, … Petitioner Versus Mrs. Jyoti Prakash Ghode & 6 ors. …Respondents Mr. S. S. Kantak, Senior Advocate with Ms. Laxmi Dessai, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. C. A. Coutinho, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ivan Santimano, Advocate for the Respondents. CORAM : VALMIKI MENEZES, J. DATED : 6TH AUGUST, 2026 P.C.: 1. By this application, the Applicant seeks modification of paragraph 3 of this Court’s order dated 10.12.2025, wherein it was recorded that the Petitioner does not press for his challenge to the order dated 16.02.2024. According to the Applicant, the Applicant had never instructed his MCA 350.2026 6th August, 2026 Advocate not to press for the challenge to the order of 16.02.2024 passed by the Trial Court. This application has been vehemently opposed by the Respondents, who have filed affidavit in reply. 2. The background facts in which the application has been filed would have to be considered by this Court in order to decide whether the same ought to be granted. In the Writ Petition No. 634/2024, the Applicant had thrown a challenge to two orders of the Trial Court, the first being the order of 16.02.2024, by which the Applicant’s application for production of a Sale Deed dated 18.06.1985, through secondary evidence was dismissed; second order dated 30.07.2024 which rejected the Applicant’s request for an adjournment immediately after the application for the secondary evidence had been dismissed. The adjournment has been refused by the Trial Court. MCA 350.2026 6th August, 2026 3. In the Writ Petition No. 634/2024, after recording the statement of the Advocate appearing for the Petitioner that on instructions the challenge to order dated 16.02.2024 was not pressed for, this Court proceeded to allow the Writ Petition and set aside the order dated 30.07.2024 and directions were issued to the Trial Court to complete the recording of the Plaintiff’s evidence within a specified time period. 4. According to the application filed, it is the case of the Applicant that he had never issued instructions to his Advocate to withdraw a challenge to the first order; the Applicant has explained the circumstances under which such instructions, if issued, would be to its own detriment. It is the Applicant’s case that the entire suit which is a title suit hinges upon his claim on the title to the suit property and the execution of the Sale Deed dated 18.06.1985, which according to him was signed by the Defendants and presented for registration; it is his case that it came to his MCA 350.2026 6th August, 2026 knowledge, that the registration was never completed from the Respondents in the Sub Registrar office, it came to his knowledge that the original Deed which he claims to have signed by the Defendants was not in the record of the Sub Registrar; he has also claimed and produced in the evidence Form-T received from the Sub Registrar office to substantiate his claim that the said document had in fact been presented to the Sub Registrar. It is on the basis of this claim, that the Plaintiff who has averred that in his application at Exhibit D-43 of the Trial Court’s file that he sought leave to produce secondary evidence, in the form of a carbon copy of the original Sale Deed on which signatures of the Defendants are claimed to be in original. It is in this background that the application for secondary evidence under Section 65 was moved before the Trial Court and same came to be dismissed by the first impugned order dated 16.02.2024. MCA 350.2026 6th August, 2026 5. It is under these circumstances that the Applicant claim that he had never instructed the Advocate appearing for him to withdraw the challenge to this order, since according to him, production of the secondary evidence was essential for him to prove the allegations in the claim and reliefs sought therein. The application contained all the details of the circumstances under which he states that he had never issued such instructions. The Applicant also submits that he has instructed the said Advocate to withdraw his Vakalatnama from the suit and to seize from representing the Plaintiff in the suit. 6. On perusal of the affidavit in reply, which refers to a second Writ Petition which came be filed after the matter was sent back to the Trial Court, where the Applicant once again did not appear; that order also came to be set aside after imposing cost. The affidavit basically puts on record all the subsequent steps taken pursuant to the order of this Court dated 10.12.2025, to demonstrate the conduct of the MCA 350.2026 6th August, 2026 Applicant. However, apart from denials of the statement that the Applicant had never issued such instruction to the Advocate, there would be no reason to disbelieve this statement, in the circumstances of the case. The circumstances, as I see are that if the Plaintiff fails to prove the execution of the document which he claims to be the Sale Deed, and fails to prove that the Defendants have in fact signed and executed the said document, the entire suit may fail. From these circumstances, one can see that it would be essential that the Plaintiff have to prove the execution of the Sale Deed through which he claims title to the suit property and claims to be put in possession of the suit property. It is on that basis that he sought to produce the said document in the secondary evidence by filing the application at Exhibit D-43 before the Trial Court. 7. For all the aforementioned reasons and the circumstances recorded above, I allow the application. The order dated 10.12.2025 would stand modified to the extent MCA 350.2026 6th August, 2026 that it records and allows the Applicant to withdraw the challenge to the order dated 16.02.2024 passed by the District Court. To that extent, the Writ Petition No. 634/2024 shall stand revived and shall be heard to the extent that it challenges the order dated 16.02.2024, which was passed on Exhibit D-43 before the Trial Court. 8. The application stands disposed of. VALMIKI MENEZES, J.