The Trial Court should grant the defendants an opportunity to present their evidence to avoid prejudice to their case, and the interest of justice may require expedited disposal of the suit and compensation to the plaintiffs.

1. Heard Mr. Coutinho, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. Diniz, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents no. 1 and 2.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable and heard forthwith by consent of the parties.

3. By this petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 04/08/2012, thereby closing the defence evidence and the order dated 31/10/2012 thereby rejecting the application for re-opening the evidence of the defence, both passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Margao (Trial Court) in Regular Civil Suit No. 111/2004/A.

4. The petitioners and the respondents no. 3 to 7 are the defendants before the Trial Court in the said Regular Civil Suit whereas respondents no. 1 and 2 are the plaintiffs. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status in the said suit.

5. After the plaintiffs closed their evidence on 21/01/2012, the matter was posted for defence evidence and after few adjournments on some ground or the other, the suit came to be fixed on 04/08/2012 for defence evidence. On 04/08/2012, as per the Roznama in the said suit, neither the defendants nor their advocate and even no witnesses for the defendants were present. The Trial Court was pleased to close the defence evidence stating that sufficient time was given to the defendants but they failed to produced the evidence. The matter came to be fixed for final arguments on 01/09/2012. On 01/09/2012, the defendants filed an application for re-opening their evidence. In that application, the defendants stated that the matter was posted for defence evidence on 06/08/2012 at 2.30 p.m. and that the defendants as well as their lawyers was present in the Court on 06/08/2012 at 2.30 p.m., but the matter was not called out and when this was informed to the learned Trial Court, the defendants were told that the above matter was taken up for hearing in morning session as the lawyer of the plaintiffs had mentioned to the Court that the matter was fixed in the morning session. They stated that there appeared to be some misunderstanding with regard to the date of hearing. It was alleged that non-appearance of the defendants and their lawyer was not intentional, considering their past conduct and that grave and irreparable injury will be caused to them, if they are not permitted to lead their evidence.

6. By order dated 31/10/2012, on the application for re-opening the evidence, the learned Trial Court observed that the plaintiffs had closed their evidence on 21/01/2012 and the suit was fixed for defence evidence and that no witness was present on behalf of the defendants after the plaintiffs closed their evidence till the date of the order i.e. till 31/10/2012. The Trial Court further observed that on 04/08/2012 in the morning session none was present for the defendants and hence the Court closed the defence evidence and adjourned the matter to 01/09/2012 on which day the application came to be filed. The Trial Court observed that averments in the application are not correct and not in accordance with the record. It was also observed that the application was not supported by any affidavit. At the end, the Trial Court, however, held that it had no jurisdiction to re-open the defence evidence and, therefore, rejected the application.

7. On 22/11/2012, the defendants even filed an application for review of the order dated 31/10/2012. The Trial Court, by order dated 04/01/2014 rejected the said application also.

8. Mr. Coutinho, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners invited my attention to the roznamas in the said suit. I have perused the roznama. It is noticed that on 21/01/2012, the plaintiffs closed their evidence and the matter was fixed for defence evidence on 09/02/2012 at 2.30 p.m. On 09/02/2012, the plaintiffs as well as their advocate was absent and learned advocate on behalf of the defendant was present. The matter was adjourned for defence evidence