LASSU ALIAS LASU BAGDO VELIP (SINCE DECEASED) AND 39 ORSversusCOMMUNIDADE OF AGONDA AND 18 ORS

2026:BHC-GOA:1721
                                               (1)                       wp-481-2025.odt



                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

                          WRIT PETITION NO.481 OF 2025
                                     WITH
                MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2298 OF 2026 (F)
                                      AND
                MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2299 OF 2026 (F)
                                       IN
                          WRIT PETITION NO.481 OF 2025

                    SHRI LASSU ALIAS LASU BAGDO VELIP (SINCE DECEASED)
                                         AND ORS
                                          VERSUS
                            COMMUNIDADE OF AGONDA AND ORS.

                                               …
               Mr. Sudin Usgaonkar, Senior Advocate with Ms. Tanisha Mashelkar,
               Advocate for Petitioners.
               Mr. Ajay Menon, Advocate for Respondent No.9.
                                               …

                                           CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.
                                           DATED : 25th AUGUST, 2026.
               FINAL ORDER:-

               1.      The petitioners raises limited challenge to order dated 04.02.2025

               passed below Exhibit-145 by Civil Judge Junior Division at Canacona,

               Goa in Regular Civil Suit No.40/2013, thereby directing return of plaint

               and seeks modification to include direction to return entire proceeding

               of the suit alongwith plaint.

               2.      The petitioners had instituted Regular Civil Suit No.40/2005 for

               declaration, injunction and correction of survey record being co-owners

               of suit properties, more particularly specified in plaint against,

               Communidade of Agonda, its Administrator and others. The defendant

               nos.7 and 8 filed application under Order VII Rules 10, 11 r/w Section
                                (2)                       wp-481-2025.odt



26 of Goa Civil Courts Acts contending that since Administrator of

Communidade/Officer appointed by Government has supervising

authority on affairs of defendant no.1 and he is made party, suit is barred

under Section 26 of Civil Courts Act before Civil Judge Junior Division.

Despite pendency of aforesaid application, suit proceeded, evidence of

parties was recorded. At this stage, impugned order is passed, on

application Exhibit-145 and plaint is ordered to be returned invoking

Order VII Rule 10 for presentation before Competent Court.

3.       The petitioners contend that application for return of plaint is

entertained at fag end of suit proceeding, when suit had substantially

progressed and evidence was partially recorded, which has resulted in

serious prejudice to petitioners.     It was expected to return plaint

alongwith entire Suit file with direction to proceed from stage at which

it is returned.

4.       Mr. Sudin Usgaonkar, learned Senior Advocate appearing for

petitioners submits that Apex Court in case of Joginder Tuli Vs. S. L.

Bhatia and Anothers1, dealt with similar situation and affirmed order

passed by High Court directing District Judge to proceed from stage at

which suit stood transferred to District Court, particularly looking to

fact that evidence was already adduced by parties.         However, Mr.

Usgaonkar in usual fairness invites attention of this Court to latest

judgment of Supreme Court in case of EXL Careers and Another Vs.
1    (1997) 1 SCC 502.
                                  (3)                      wp-481-2025.odt



Frankfinn Aviation Services (Private) Limited2, wherein after

considering conflict in between Joginder Tuli (supra) and ONGC

Limited Vs. M/s. Modern Construction and Co.3 referred matter to

Larger Bench.            Accordingly, Larger Bench answered reference

approving law laid down in case of Modern Construction (supra) with

observation in paragraph no.20, which reads thus:

      “The statutory scheme now becomes clear. In cases dealing
      with transfer of proceedings from a Court having jurisdiction to
      another Court, the discretion vested in the Court by Sections
      24(2) and 25(3) either to retry the proceedings or proceed from
      the point at which such proceeding was transferred or
      withdrawn, is in marked contrast to the scheme under Order VII
      Rule 10 read with Rule 10-A where no such discretion is given
      and the proceeding has to commence de novo.”

5.       Mr. Ajay Menon, learned Advocate appearing for respondents

invites attention of this Court to decisions rendered by Hon’ble Single

Judges of this Court in case of Aj Organica Private Limited and Others

Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others 4 and Sunrise Biscuit Company

Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Oriental Insurance Company 5, wherein legal position as

set out by Larger Bench in case of EXL Careers and Another (supra)

has been restated and explained.

6.       In light of aforesaid backdrop, this Court finds that petitioners’

contentions to direct return of plaint with entire proceeding to proceed

from stage of suit on date of return of plaint cannot be countenanced. In

result Writ Petition sans merit. Hence, dismissed.
2    (2021) 13 SCC 215.
3    (2014) 1 SCC 648.
4    2025 SCC OnLine Bom 640.
5    2024 SCC OnLine 1135.
                                (4)                      wp-481-2025.odt



7.       In view of dismissal of Writ Petition, pending Civil Application

stands disposed of.

                                         (S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR)
                                                  JUDGE
Devendra/August-2026