The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of fair procedure and consideration of all parties' contentions before making decisions that significantly affect their rights.

F.M. Reis, J.

Heard Shri P.P. Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner in Writ Petition no. 279 of 2006, Mr. Anthony D' Silva, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent no. 1 and Shri J.P. Mulgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners in Writ Petition nos. 362 and 626 of 2006 and for Respondent nos. 2 and 3 in Writ Petition no. 279 of 2006.

2. All the above Writ Petitions were ordered to be taken up together by an Order dated 09.08.2007.

3. Writ Petition No. 279 of 2006

Briefly, the facts of the case as stated by the Petitioners is that on 22.11.1993, the IDC leases of Plot no. 49 in Tivim Industrial Estate and shed no. D-310 was sold to Mrs. Alpine Engineering Works. An agreement of assignment dated 28.09.1994, came to be executed between Mrs. Alpine Engineering Works. But, however, the Agreement was not performed till August 2003 on account of paucity of funds with the Respondent no. 3. Consequently, the Petitioner agreed to assign the shed together with the lease hold rights in the plot for a total consideration of Rs. 6,50,000/-. The draft of the Agreement for the assignment of rights between the Alpine Engineering, the Respondent no. 3 and the Petitioners was prepared and handed over to the Respondent no. 2 for execution. A sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- was advanced by the Petitioners. Simultaneously, the Petitioner was put in actual physical possession of the plot shed. But, however, such document was not executed. Thereafter, M/s. Alpine Engineers on 01.08.2003, sold their share to the Respondent no. 3 and IDC leases the plot to the Respondent no. 3. Subsequently, on 28.10.2003, a fresh Agreement of Assignment was drafted and executed between the Respondent no. 3 through the Respondent no. 2 and the Petitioners. Thereafter, on 09.03.2004, the Respondent no. 3 through the Respondent no. 2, sold the share to the Petitioner. IDC leases plot to the Petitioners on 16.04.2004. Somewhere on 03.04.2004, Regular Civil Suit no. 69 of 2004, was filed by the Respondent no. 1 in the Court of the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division at Mapusa for a declaration that the Respondent no. 1 is a Director of the Respondent no. 3 and for a permanent injunction restraining the Respondent nos. 2 and 3 from alienating the assets of the Respondent no. 3. An Application under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 was also filed in the said suit for temporary injunction. The application for temporary injunction was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division at Mapusa by Order dated 12.04.2005. The Order was challenged before the learned District Judge by preferring a Misc. Civil Appeal no. 46 of 2005. By an Order dated 28.11.2005, the learned Judge cancelled the registration of the Deed of Sale dated 09.03.2004 in favour of the Petitioners as also the Tripartite Deed of Lease dated 16.04.2004.

4. Being aggrieved by the said Order, the Petitioners have filed the above Writ Petition challenging the adverse findings in the impugned Order against the Petitioner after he learnt about the said Order.

5. The main contention of the Petitioner in the above Writ Petition is that the Lower Appellate Court was in law obliged not to make any Order pre-judicial to the interest of the Petitioners behind his back and that the Lower Appellate Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in directing the cancellation of the registration of the Deed of Sale dated 09.03.2004 and the Tri-partite Lease Deed dated 16.04.2004 executed in favour of the Petitioners. It is further the contention of the Petitioner that the Petitioner neither has title to the said plot nor the factory shed nor the money paid by him to the Respondent nos. 2 and 3 to acquire title on the basis of the said documents.

Writ Petition No. 362 of 2006

6. Briefly, the facts of the Petition as stated in the above Writ Petition are that the Petition has been filed by the Petitioners who are the defendants in the said Regular Civil Suit no. 69 of 2004 filed in the Court of learned Civil Judge Sen