(1) WP-675-2026.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO.675 OF 2026 CONCEPTION COUTINHO VERSUS ADITYA CIVIL CONTRACTOR, PARRYS ARCADE, PHASE II PRESENTED BY ITS PARTNERS AND 19 ORS. … Mr. Sanman Keny (through VC), Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. Shivan Dessai with Ms. Riya Amonkar, Advocates for Respondent Nos.1 to 3. Ms. Priyanka Kamat, Advocate for Respondent No.17. … CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J. DATED : 02nd SEPTEMBER, 2026. FINAL ORDER :- 1. The petitioner impugns order dated 03.05.2025 passed below Exhibit-119, order dated 30.07.2025 passed below Exhibit-125, order dated 06.12.2025 passed below Exhibit-133 and order dated 19.06.2026 passed below Exhibit-178 in Regular Civil Suit No.48/2014/C pending before Civil Judge Junior Division, Margaon. 2. The petitioner instituted Suit in the name of Mehraj Center MNF Heights, Co-operative Housing Society being Secretary and authorized person. Subsequently, he got impleaded himself as plaintiff no.2 in capacity of Member of Society. The suit is instituted for relief of declaration that open terrace is for exclusive use of Society and that deed of sale dated 11.10.2010 and construction license no.A/118/12-13 are null and void. In addition, relief of mandatory injunction is sought from continuing illegal construction on terrace and removal of construction already made. 2026:BHC-GOA:1780 (2) WP-675-2026.odt 3. While petitioner was in witness box, his locus and authority to sue on behalf of Society was challenged by way of cross-examinations. The petitioner tendered photocopies of Resolutions and notice dated 02.01.2014 as originals are in custody of Society. The petitioner also filed an application under Order VII Rule 14 of Code of Civil Procedure for production of aforesaid documents. Eventually, summons was issued to Mrs. Biula Pereira (then Chairperson of Society) to produce original documents. The summons returned unaccepted as she was no more Chairperson. The petitioner then filed application below Exhibit-119 seeking permission to give secondary evidence of Resolutions/notices, which came to be rejected vide order dated 03.05.2025. The petitioner came to know from letter dated 17.11.2023 addressed by Mrs. Biula Pereira to Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Society that after her resignation entire office record of Society is handed over to Mr. Felix D’souza (Chief Promoter and Former Secretary). Hence, petitioner filed an application under Section 66 of Indian Evidence Act below Exhibit-129 for issuance of summons to Mr. Felix D’souza for production of original documents, since he failed to act upon petitioner’s notice for production of documents. The said application came to be rejected vide order dated 30.07.2025 observing that petitioner could not bring any material to show that Mr. D’souza is currently in office or in possession of documents. Thereafter petitioner filed an application for review of order on ground that he has obtained (3) WP-675-2026.odt documents from Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies under Right to Information Act, which reveals that Mr. Felix D’souza is heading committee of Administrators appointed under Section 67(A) of Goa Co-operative Societies Act, 2001, however, by order dated 06.12.2025 review application came to be rejected observing that petitioner failed to demonstrate due diligence. Ultimately, petitioner’s evidence is closed vide order dated 19.06.2026. Prior to that, petitioner was allowed to produce documents received under RTI vide order below Exhibit-138. 4. Mr. Sanman Keni, learned Advocate appearing for petitioner would submit that by order dated 03.01.2026 passed below Exhibit-138 petitioner is permitted to place on record documents received under Right to Information Act from office of Assistant Registrar, Co- operative Societies, which includes notice dated 15.07.2024 issued by Assistant Registrar to Society intimating appointment of Mr. Felix D’souza and others as Administrators. The plaintiff seeks to rely upon aforesaid documents to demonstrate that Mr. Felix D’souza being Administrator is in possession of record of Society. The petitioner wants to issue witness summons to him to bring on record the Resolutions/communications authorizing him to file suit. Earlier petitioner’s attempt to issue witness summons to Mr. Felix D’souza have been frustrated giving reason that no material is produced to (4) WP-675-2026.odt demonstrate that Mr. Felix D’souza is in possession of Society record. However, since document indicating appointment of Mr. Felix D’souza as Administrator is on record, there is no impediment in issuing witness summon to him for production of Resolutions and Communications pertaining to petitioner’s authority to file suit on behalf of Society. 5. After hearing learned Advocates appearing for respective parties, this Court finds that crucial issue as to petitioner’s authority to institute suit is raised on behalf of respondent. The record of Society can throw light on aforesaid aspect which appears to be in possession of Mr. Felix D’souza who has been appointed as Administrator and must be holding charge of relevant documents. Although earlier Trial Court declined to issue witness summons to Mr. Felix D’souza for want of reliable material depicting possession of Society record with him, now there is sufficient material to support petitioner’s case that Mr. Felix D’souza has been appointed as Administrator and in possession of Society record. 6. It is trite that, procedural law is handmade of justice and parties shall not be deprived of right to prove their case by giving undeue importance to procedural hurdles. This Court finds that in interest of justice it would be appropriate to set aside orders dated 30.07.2025 and 19.06.2006 passed below Exhibits 129 and 178 respectively and allow application Exhibit 129 for issuance of summons to Mr. Felix D’souza (5) WP-675-2026.odt for production of original documents of plaintiff no.1 Society and permit petitioner to lead further evidence. 7. In result, Writ Petition is partly allowed. 8. The orders dated 30.07.2025 and 19.06.2006 passed below Exhibits 129 and 178 respectively are quashed and set aside and application Exhibit 129 stands allowed and petitioner shall be at liberty to lead further evidence pertaining to documents that would be produced by Mr. Felix D’souza in response to summons. (S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR) JUDGE Devendra/September-2026