1 CA 95 2026 4th September, 2026 Sonam IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CIVIL APPLICATION NO.95 OF 2026 IN CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.33 OF 2026 GURU MADAR ... APPLICANT Versus COMMUNIDADE OF MORMUGAO REP BY ITS ATTORNEY ... RESPONDENT Mr. Sherwyn Filipe Francisco Correia, Advocate for the Applicant. P.C. CORAM:- VALMIKI MENEZES, J. DATED :- 4th September, 2026 1. This civil application takes exception to an order dated 18.05.2026, by which the Petitioner/original Defendant’s application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has been rejected. The main grounds raised in the application seeking rejection of the plaint are as follows: (a) That the Plaintiff, who is the Communidade, has instituted the suit despite there being a bar under Article 371 of the Code of Communidade. (b) That the Attorney of the Communidade, who has filed the suit and verified the plaint, was not empowered to represent the Communidade in terms of Article 30 of the Code. 2026:BHC-GOA:1800 1 CA 95 2026 4th September, 2026 2. On perusing the plaint, the same has been verified by the Attorney of the Communidade. The verification states that the particular paragraphs of the plaint are true to his own knowledge. He has filed the same as the Attorney of the Communidade. On the face of the plaint, there is nothing to infer that the Attorney of the Communidade was not empowered to institute the plaint. The only argument raised is that the plaint came to be instituted only after the General Body of the Communidades denigrates over the allegations of the illegal construction, and thereafter empowers the attorney to file such a plaint; that plaint can be instituted. 3. This, as I see is the allegation of the Defendant which is contained in his application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, which may be his defence, but at this Stage, the Court cannot look into the defence of the parties and must restrict itself to examining the averments in the plaint and documents which may be annexed to the plaint. Restricting myself to the perusal of the plaint, there is nothing in the plaint which can be inferred to bar the jurisdiction of this Court, and entertain the plaint which is filed at the behest of the Attorney of the Communidade, who otherwise is elected to represent the Communidade in all matters. 4. The other ground of seeking rejection of the plaint that is 1 CA 95 2026 4th September, 2026 urged is that the provisions of Article 371, as now amended, constitute a bar to the institution of the suit by the Communidade. It is submitted that since the provisions of Article 371, as amended, now require the Communidade to file the complaint to the Director of Civil Administration, i.e. the Collector or its nominee, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is impliedly barred. 5. I have perused the provisions of Article 371 and, in my opinion, there is neither an express nor an implied bar that can be inferred from reading of the provisions. The provisions now confer the powers to the Collector to take such action, such as eviction or removal of a person who is unauthorisedly in occupation of land that vests with the Communidade. This, however, does not imply that the powers of the Civil Court conferred under Section 9 of CPC are barred. 6. It is a settled law that the bar to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is not to be easily inferred. In the present case, the plain reading of Article 371, would lead to the conclusion that now the Collector, in addition to the Civil Court, has been given such powers to evict unauthorised persons in the Communidade land only to provide a quicker remedy that by itself does not mean that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred. Similar would be the case if one examines the provisions of Section 66 of the Panchayat Raj Act or Section 184 of the Goa Municipalities Act, both of which 1 CA 95 2026 4th September, 2026 contain similar provisions. 7. However, these provisions, though empowers certain authorities to have executive powers to take quick action to remove unauthorised encroachments on the land of the Communidade or even on private lands, but these provisions would never bar the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain the suit. 8. On going through the Judgment of the Trial Court, the Trial Court has considered both the aforementioned provisions and, on going through the plaint, has applied all legal principles on the Court’s proceedings and rejected the application. There is no reason to interfere with the impugned. The application therefore stands rejected in limine. 9. In view of the above, Civil Revision Application No. 33 of 2026 stands disposed of. VALMIKI MENEZES, J.