IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA.

CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 36 OF 2002.

1. Smt Sheela Naguesh Naik,

2. Shri Amar Naguesh Naik,

3. Smt. Amarpali Amar Naik,

4. Shri Jayaraj Naguesh Naik,

5. Smt. Jayashree Jayraj Naik,

6. Shri Manoj Naguesh Naik,

7. Smt. Manjili Manoj Naik,

8. Shri Deepak Naguesh Naik,

9. Smt. Deepika Deepak Naik,

10.Miss Meghana N. Naik,

11.Miss Sadhana N. Naik,

All legal heirs of late

Naguesh Raya Naik, residents

of Welwado, Poinguinim,

Canacona, Goa.

... Applicants.

Versus

Communidade of Poiguinim,

represented by its Attorney,

having office at Poinguinim,

Canacona, Goa.

... Respondent.

Mr. M.S. Sonak, Advocate for the Applicants.

Mr. S.S. Kantak, Advocate for the Respondent.

Coram: P.V. HARDAS, J.

Date: 6th June 2002.

ORAL ORDER.

By consent of parties, this revision is taken

up for final disposal at the stage of admission.

2. This revision has been filed by the heirs of

party no. 2 in Land Acquisition Case No. 88/91/II

pending on the file of the IInd Additional District

Judge, South Goa, Margao. This revision has been filed

taking exception to the Order passed by the IInd

Additional District Judge, South Goa, Margao, dated 8th

- 2 -

November 2001 in the aforesaid Land Acquisition Case.

3. The respondent herein/original party no. 1

in Land Acquisition Case No. 88/91/II filed an

application under Order XIII, Rule 2 of the Code of

Civil Procedure, Exhibit 26, seeking permission of the

Court to produce documents at Serial Nos. a) to g)

referred to in paragraph 3 of the said application. In

the said application it was also prayed that P.W.1 be

re-called for the limited purpose of producing the said

documents.

4. The present applicants filed their reply to

the aforesaid application and objected to the production

of the documents on the ground that no sufficient cause

had been shown and three witnesses had already been

examined. It was also objected to by the applicants on

the ground that the documents sought to be produced were

neither listed or referred to in the evidence of the

respondent herein and the respondent by producing the

documents at item (g), that is, report of the Engineer

K.P. Dessai with a plan (sketch), was stated in the

reply that the said report was in the nature of an

afterthought.

5. The learned IInd Additional District Judge,

South Goa, Margao, while allowing the application held

- 3 -

that excepting the report of the Engineer, all the other

documents sought to be produced were public documents.

The learned IInd Additional District Judge further held

that the report of the Engineer could not have been

produced by the party no. 1, that is, the respondent

herein alongwith the list of documents as this document

was prepared subsequently. The learned IInd Additional

District Judge further observed that the applicants

herein would have ample opportunity to cross-examine the

witnesses after which the evidentiary value of the

aforesaid report of the Engineer would be decided. The

learned IInd Additional District Judge further held that

in order to obviate any prejudice which may be caused to

the present applicants by allowing the production of the

doc