2. By consent heard forthwith.

3. The petitioners herein are the plaintiffs in R.C.S. No. 279/2000/C. In this Writ Petition, they challenge the Order dated 10-1-2008 of the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division at Panaji by which the plaintiffs application dated 9-102007 to strike off the additional written statement dated 3-3-2004 has been rejected.

4. The plaintiffs had filed the said Civil Suit inter alia seeking a declaration that they were the tenants of the suit premises and in the alternative had also prayed for recovery of possession of the said suit premises in case it was held that they were dispossessed.

5. The defendant No.2 resisted the suit pleading that Rajaram Wagle, the predecessor in title of the plaintiffs who was the tenant in respect of the suit premises had surrendered the possession of the suit premises, wherein he along with defendant No. 1 used to carry on the business of retail and wholesale of liquor. The defendant No. 1 had resisted the suit pleading that he was inducted in the suit premises by defendant No.2 for carrying on the said business.

6. During the pendency of the suit, defendant No.2 expired and by virtue of Order dated 10-12-2003 the defendants 2(i) to (vii) were brought on record and they filed a written statement on or about 3-3-2004 to which the plaintiffs did not react till the legal representatives sought to produce certain documents based on the additional written statement. As per the plaintiffs, the legal representatives of deceased defendant No.2 in the said written statement dated 3-3-2004 raised new pleas relating to the alleged title to the suit premises. In fact, as per the said legal representatives and particularly defendant Nos. 2(iii), 2(iv) and 2(vi) they came to be allotted the said suit premises in Inventory Proceedings No. 80/89/ A and on the basis of the said allotment made, they have also instituted a Civil Suit bearing No. SCS/89/99/B against the present plaintiffs restraining them from interfering with their possession of the suit premises and the said suit is pending for trial.

7. The learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the plaintiffs, referring to the provisions of Order 22, Rule 4(2), Civil Procedure Code contends that the said legal representatives having been brought on record in the place of deceased defendant No.2, could have made a defence appropriate to their character as legal representatives and could not have raised any new plea in the derogation of the plea already taken by deceased defendant No.2.

8. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the said legal representatives of deceased defendant No.2 has referred to the said Order dated 10-12-2003 and contended that the said legal representatives were allowed to take a suitable defence which could be decided in the trial of the suit and in that light has placed reliance on the case of Satyadhyan Ghosal and others vs. Smt. Deorajin Debi and another, AIR 1960 SC 941. Learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the said legal representatives has also placed reliance on the case of Surya Dev Rai vs. Ram Chander Rai and others, 2004(1) Mh.L.J. (SC) 633 = (2003) 6 SCC 675 which deals with the powers of this Court in supervisory jurisdiction. The Apex Court, inter alia, in the last mentioned decision has stated thus:-

“(7) The power to issue a writ of certiorari and the supervisory jurisdiction are to be exercised sparingly and only in appropriate cases where the judicial conscience of the High Court dictates it to act lest a gross failure of justice or grave injustice should occasion. Care, caution and circumspection need to be exercised, when any of the above said two jurisdictions is sought to be invoked during the pendency of any suit or proceedings in a subordinate Court and the error though calling for correction is yet capable of being corrected at the conclusion of the proceedings in an appeal or revision preferred there against and entertaining a petition invoking certiorari or supervis