Bombay High Court

GLENN LOBOversusTERESA LOBO ALSO KNOWN AS TEREZINE PINTO E LOBO (SINCE DECEASED THR. LRS) AND 3 ORS

Disposal: Allowed
Bench: VALMIKI MENEZES

Holding

The review application is dismissed as it is not maintainable and no error is apparent in the impugned order.

Summary

Glenn Lobo filed a review application seeking to set aside the Court's order dated 23‑08‑2024 which dismissed his second appeal. The Court noted that Lobo had previously filed a revision application (CAREV 2385/2024(F)) that was dismissed for non‑prosecution because he failed to appear on more than two occasions. The present review was therefore deemed not maintainable. Even assuming maintainability, the Court found no apparent error in the earlier order that would warrant a review. Consequently, the review application was dismissed and the related civil application was also disposed of.

Issues considered

Whether the review application is maintainable in view of the prior dismissal for default
Whether there is any apparent error in the order dated 23‑08‑2024 justifying its review

Subjects

review application
civil procedure
default
maintainability
order dismissal

Judgment

2026:BHC-GOA:283
                                              33 CAREV 3 2026

                Sonam

                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
                      CIVIL APPLICATION (REVIEW) NO.3 OF 2026
                                      WITH
                CIVIL APPLICATION (REVIEW) NO.2385 OF 2024 (F), CIVIL
                             APPLICATION NO.10 OF 2026
                       CIVIL APPLICATION (REVIEW) NO.3 OF 2026
           GLENN LOBO                                 ... APPLICANT
              Versus
           TERESA LOBO ALSO KNOWN AS TEREZINE
           PINTO E LOBO (SINCE DECEASED THR.
           LRS) AND 3 ORS                             ... RESPONDENTS
                                        WITH
                     CIVIL APPLICATION (REVIEW) NO.2385 OF 2024 (F)
                                         IN
                              SECOND APPEAL NO.7 OF 2024
           GLENN LOBO                                  ... APPLICANT
              Versus
           TERESA LOBO ALSO KNOWN AS TEREZINE
           PINTO E LOBO (SINCE DECEASED THR.
           LRS) AND 3 ORS                              ... RESPONDENTS

                                             WITH
                                 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.10 OF 2026
           GLENN LOBO                                        ... APPLICANT
              Versus
           TERESA LOBO ALSO KNOWN AS TEREZINE
           PINTO E LOBO (SINCE DECEASED THR.
           LRS) AND 3 ORS                                            ... RESPONDENTS

           None for the Applicant.
           Mr. John Abreau Lobo, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 and 4.

                                  CORAM:- VALMIKI MENEZES, J.
                                  DATED :- 17th February, 2026

           P.C.:
           1.      Registry to waive office objections and register the matter.



                                                  Page 1 of 2
                                               17th February, 2026
                                   33 CAREV 3 2026


2.      This Review Application seeks to review order dated 23.08.2024,
by which Second Appeal No. 7/2024 was dismissed by this Court. The
order passed by this Court, sought to be reviewed herein, was passed
on merits and after hearing the Appellant, who appeared in person.


3.      Prior to the filing of this Review Application, the Appellant had
filed    an   earlier   Revision   Application             bearing   No.   CAREV
2385/2024(F),      which    was    dismissed             for   non-prosecution   on
28.02.2025. That order was passed in view of the fact that the Review
Petitioner had not appeared on more than two occasions. The present
Review Application has been filed in the face of the dismissal of the
earlier Review Application for default. The present Review
Application is therefore not maintainable.


4.       In any event, even on going through the order of 23.08.2024,
there is no error apparent on the face of the record pointed out in the
grounds contained in the present application, which calls for recall or
review of that order. The application is therefore dismissed.


5.        In view of the dismissal of Civil Application (Review) No.
3/2026, Civil Application No. 10/2026 also stands disposed of.



                                              VALMIKI MENEZES, J.



                                      Page 2 of 2
                                   17th February, 2026

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…