CONCEPTION COUTINHOversusADITYA CIVIL CONTRACTOR, PARRYS ARCADE, PHASE II REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNERS AND 19 ORS

2026:BHC-GOA:1780
                                             (1)                      WP-675-2026.odt



                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
                              WRIT PETITION NO.675 OF 2026
                                   CONCEPTION COUTINHO
                                           VERSUS
                 ADITYA CIVIL CONTRACTOR, PARRYS ARCADE, PHASE II
                          PRESENTED BY ITS PARTNERS AND 19 ORS.
                                                …
               Mr. Sanman Keny (through VC), Advocate for Petitioner.
               Mr. Shivan Dessai with Ms. Riya Amonkar, Advocates for Respondent
               Nos.1 to 3.
               Ms. Priyanka Kamat, Advocate for Respondent No.17.
                                               …
                                       CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.
                                       DATED : 02nd SEPTEMBER, 2026.

               FINAL ORDER:-

               1.    The petitioner impugns order dated 03.05.2025 passed below

               Exhibit-119, order dated 30.07.2025 passed below Exhibit-125, order

               dated 06.12.2025 passed below Exhibit-133 and order dated 19.06.2026

               passed below Exhibit-178 in Regular Civil Suit No.48/2014/C pending

               before Civil Judge Junior Division, Margaon.


               2.    The petitioner instituted Suit in the name of Mehraj Center MNF

               Heights, Co-operative Housing Society being Secretary and authorized

               person. Subsequently, he got impleaded himself as plaintiff no.2 in

               capacity of Member of Society. The suit is instituted for relief of

               declaration that open terrace is for exclusive use of Society and that

               deed of sale dated 11.10.2010 and construction license no.A/118/12-13

               are null and void. In addition, relief of mandatory injunction is sought

               from continuing illegal construction on terrace and removal of

               construction already made.
                              (2)                      WP-675-2026.odt



3.    While petitioner was in witness box, his locus and authority to

sue on behalf of Society was challenged by way of cross-examinations.

The petitioner tendered photocopies of Resolutions and notice dated

02.01.2014 as originals are in custody of Society. The petitioner also

filed an application under Order VII Rule 14 of Code of Civil Procedure

for production of aforesaid documents.      Eventually, summons was

issued to Mrs. Biula Pereira (then Chairperson of Society) to produce

original documents. The summons returned unaccepted as she was no

more Chairperson.      The petitioner then filed application below

Exhibit-119 seeking permission to give secondary evidence of

Resolutions/notices, which came to be rejected vide order dated

03.05.2025. The petitioner came to know from letter dated 17.11.2023

addressed by Mrs. Biula Pereira to Assistant Registrar of Co-operative

Society that after her resignation entire office record of Society is

handed over to Mr. Felix D’souza (Chief Promoter and Former

Secretary). Hence, petitioner filed an application under Section 66 of

Indian Evidence Act below Exhibit-129 for issuance of summons to Mr.

Felix D’souza for production of original documents, since he failed to

act upon petitioner’s notice for production of documents. The said

application came to be rejected vide order dated 30.07.2025 observing

that petitioner could not bring any material to show that Mr. D’souza is

currently in office or in possession of documents. Thereafter petitioner

filed an application for review of order on ground that he has obtained
                              (3)                       WP-675-2026.odt



documents from Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies under

Right to Information Act, which reveals that Mr. Felix D’souza is

heading committee of Administrators appointed under Section 67(A) of

Goa Co-operative Societies Act, 2001, however, by order dated

06.12.2025 review application came to be rejected observing that

petitioner failed to demonstrate due diligence. Ultimately, petitioner’s

evidence is closed vide order dated 19.06.2026. Prior to that, petitioner

was allowed to produce documents received under RTI vide order below

Exhibit-138.


4.    Mr. Sanman Keni, learned Advocate appearing for petitioner

would submit that by order dated 03.01.2026 passed below Exhibit-138

petitioner is permitted to place on record documents received under

Right to Information Act from office of Assistant Registrar, Co-

operative Societies, which includes notice dated 15.07.2024 issued by

Assistant Registrar to Society intimating appointment of Mr. Felix

D’souza and others as Administrators. The plaintiff seeks to rely upon

aforesaid documents to demonstrate that Mr. Felix D’souza being

Administrator is in possession of record of Society. The petitioner

wants to issue witness summons to him to bring on record the

Resolutions/communications authorizing him to file suit.            Earlier

petitioner’s attempt to issue witness summons to Mr. Felix D’souza

have been frustrated giving reason that no material is produced to
                                (4)                         WP-675-2026.odt



demonstrate that Mr. Felix D’souza is in possession of Society record.

However, since document indicating appointment of Mr. Felix D’souza

as Administrator is on record, there is no impediment in issuing witness

summon to him for production of Resolutions and Communications

pertaining to petitioner’s authority to file suit on behalf of Society.


5.    After hearing learned Advocates appearing for respective parties,

this Court finds that crucial issue as to petitioner’s authority to institute

suit is raised on behalf of respondent. The record of Society can throw

light on aforesaid aspect which appears to be in possession of Mr. Felix

D’souza who has been appointed as Administrator and must be holding

charge of relevant documents. Although earlier Trial Court declined to

issue witness summons to Mr. Felix D’souza for want of reliable

material depicting possession of Society record with him, now there is

sufficient material to support petitioner’s case that Mr. Felix D’souza

has been appointed as Administrator and in possession of Society

record.


6.    It is trite that, procedural law is handmade of justice and parties

shall not be deprived of right to prove their case by giving undeue

importance to procedural hurdles. This Court finds that in interest of

justice it would be appropriate to set aside orders dated 30.07.2025 and

19.06.2006 passed below Exhibits 129 and 178 respectively and allow

application Exhibit 129 for issuance of summons to Mr. Felix D’souza
                                  (5)                   WP-675-2026.odt



for production of original documents of plaintiff no.1 Society and

permit petitioner to lead further evidence.


7.       In result, Writ Petition is partly allowed.


8.       The orders dated 30.07.2025 and 19.06.2006 passed below

Exhibits 129 and 178 respectively are quashed and set aside and

application Exhibit 129 stands allowed and petitioner shall be at liberty

to lead further evidence pertaining to documents that would be produced

by Mr. Felix D’souza in response to summons.



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