The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of timely and appropriate legal actions, the rejection of subsequent applications due to principles of res judicata, and the criticism of procedural prevarication and abuse of process.

JUDGMENT

Dama Seshadri Naidu, J. - In 1982, the 1st and the 2nd respondents' predecessor filed Regular Civil Suit No.302/1982/D before Civil Judge, Junior Division, 'F' Court, Margao, against the petitioners' predecessor. The suit was for eviction and restoration of possession. Through judgment and decree, dated 31.07.1997-that is, 15 years later-the trial Court decreed the suit.

2. Aggrieved, the respondents filed First Appeal before the District Court, Margao. It too was dismissed. To illustrate the antiquity of this case, I may note that neither party is aware of the appeal number, much less when it was disposed of.

3. After the dismissal of the first Appeal, further aggrieved, the petitioners filed Second Appeal No.39/1998. This Court, through judgment dated 12.03.1999, dismissed it. Thus, the eviction proceedings, one would think, attained finality; but they did not.

4. Pending the Second Appeal, in 1997 the petitioners applied to the Mamlatdar, invoking the provisions of the Goa Mundkars (Protection from Eviction) Act, 1975. It was for registration and declaration that they had had the mundkarial rights over the 'dwelling house' and right to purchase it, too. Through an order, dated 23.09.2009, the Mamlatdar allowed the registration but refused declaration.

5. Then, the respondents, as the owners, challenged the Mamlatdar's order before the Deputy Collector, who is the appellate authority under the Act. Through an order, dated 27.07.2011, the appellate authority dismissed the appeal. Though the respondents no.1 & 2 went to the Goa Administrative Tribunal, they could not succeed. Thus, the revision too was dismissed on 27.07.2016.

6. At any rate, once the Second Appeal was dismissed in 1999, the respondents filed Execution Application No.28/1999/F before the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Margao. By then, the proceedings before the Mamlatdar were pending. So, eight years later, in 2007, the petitioners applied to the Execution Court and demanded that the execution proceedings be dropped. It was on the premise that as per Section 38 of the Act the proceedings under that Act have overriding effect. But soon thereafter, as we have already noted, September 2009, the Mamlatdar only allowed registration but not declaration. Thus, from then on, there had been no application pending before the Mamlatdar.

7. Under the above circumstances, through an order dated 03.11.2017, the Executing Court refused to drop the proceedings. Then the petitioners filed Writ Petition No.1144 of 2018. Eventually, this Court, through its judgment dated 27.02.2019, dismissed that Writ Petition.

8. Unrelenting, again on 16.04.2019, the petitioners filed another application before the Executing Court. This time, they wanted the Court to stay the execution proceedings until the Mamlatdar decided their application on their mundkarial rights. Here, we may note that when Writ Petition No.1144 of 2018 was pending before this Court, the petitioners filed another application in 2019 before the Mamlatdar for a declaration. It was despite the fact that the same authority in 1999 dismissed the petitioners' application for declaration. Predictably, the Executing Court, again, refused to stay the proceedings. Aggrieved, the petitioners have filed this Writ Petition, invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Submissions:

Petitioners:

9. Shri Bhobe, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has submitted that once any mundkarial proceedings are pending before the Mamlatdar, no suit or other proceedings emanating from that suit shall be proceeded with; they must be stayed. According to him, the 1975 Act has an overriding effect, as is evident from Section 38 of that Act. To the question whether the expression 'suit' encompass even execution proceedings, the learned counsel has relied on Shantaram Babani Xete Curtorkar & Anr. v. Vishnu Babani Xete Curtorkar & Anr,1989 2 GoaLT 167. Shri Bhobe has also submitted that to have the mundkarial rights declared, the applicant suff