Oral Order:

1. By this Petition, the Petitioner seeks to set aside the Order dated 20th December 2025, passed by the Civil Judge Senior Division-IInd Additional Court, Margao, by which Respondent No. 1’s application under Order IX Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Code 1908, (‘CPC’) was directed to be heard and decided without framing any points of determination, and only on the basis of the facts and circumstances mentioned in the said application, supporting documents, replies and other material on record.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

                   i. On 17th May 2013, Respondent No. 1 (original Plaintiff) instituted a Special Civil Suit No. 35/2013/III before the Civil Judge Senior Division, Margao, assailing a Sale Deed dated 21st May 2010 executed by and between the Petitioner and the Respondent Nos. 1 and 3. The Petitioner (original Defendant No.1) filed its written statement to the same on 22nd August 2013. By Order dated 30th August 2016, the Trial Court dismissed the Suit for non-prosecution as Respondent No. 1 herein was seeking unnecessary adjournments and was not proceeding with the Suit.

                   ii. Thereafter, on 30th September, 2016, Respondent No. 1 made an application under Order IX Rule 9 of the CPC, seeking to set aside the ex parte Order dated 30th August 2016. The Petitioner filed its reply dated 06th October 2017 to the said application. Upon hearing both the parties, the Trial Court vide Order dated 20th January 2018 framed two points for determination pertaining to the restoration application.

                   iii. The Respondent No. 1 assailed the said Order before this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 642 of 2018. On 26th November 2018, the Petition was admitted and proceedings in Special Civil Suit No. 13/2013/III were stayed. On 18th August 2022, the Respondent No. 1 withdrew Writ Petition No. 642 of 2018, unconditionally. Once again, following the unconditional withdrawal of the Writ Petition from this Court, the Respondent No.1 made an application dated 23rd August 2022 before the Trial Court, seeking modification/recall of the Order dated 20th January 2018, i.e., the same Order which was assailed before this Court in Writ Petition No. 642 of 2018. The Petitioner filed its reply to the recall application on 04th January 2023. The recall application was allowed vide Order dated 06th November 2023.

                   iv. Aggrieved by the same, the Petitioner and Respondent No. 2 (original Defendant No. 2) filed applications dated 06th December 2023 under Section 114 and Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC, seeking review of the Order dated 06th November 2023. The aforesaid applications were dismissed by Order dated 03rd July 2024.

                   v. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 1682/2024 (F) before this Court, challenging the Orders dated 06th November 2023 and 03rd July 2024. The Writ Petition was disposed of by Order dated 26th September 2025, wherein this Court, after recording the consent of all the parties, quashed and set aside the aforesaid Orders and directed the Trial Court to decide the recall application afresh within three months.

                   vi. Pursuant to the Order of this Court, the Trial Court, after hearing both sides, allowed the recall application and modified its Order dated 20th January 2018, holding that no points of determination were required and that the Court would proceed to hear the application for restoration of the Suit only on the basis of the application, replies, and supporting documents. It is this Order that is assailed by the Petitioner in the present Writ Petition.

3. Heard Mr. Naik, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, Mr. Kaif Noorani; learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No. 1, Mr. Preetam Talaulikar; learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No. 2, Mr. Bryan Noronha; and learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No. 3. I have also perused the record with their assistance.

4. At the outset, Mr Naik raises two objections to the Order impugned herein. He says that once Respondent No. 1 had filed Writ Petition No. 642 of 2018 assailing the Order dated 20th January 2018, and after having unconditionally withdrawn the said Petition, he was barred from making any application before the Trial Court seeking the same relief as he had sought in the Writ Petition.

5. Mr Naik’s second point of argument is that, in any case, the recall application was made four and a half years after the Order dated 20th January 2018 was passed, i.e., on 23rd August 2022. He says that, as per the law of limitation, the application is time-barred, as the limitation period is three years from the date of the Order.

6. Having perused the record of the proceedings, it appears that the Petitioner had made an application seeking review of the Order dated 6th November 2023, allowing the recall application made by the Respondent No.1. The same was dismissed. The Petitioner assailed the said Order dated 3rd July 2024 before this Court by way of Writ Petition No. 1682/2024 (F). This Court, by its Order dated 26th September 2025 , after hearing the petition for some time, with the consent of both the parties, set aside the Order dated 6th November 2023 and 3rd July 2024 and directed the Trial Court to decide the application filed by the respondent No. 1 for modification/ recall of Order afresh within 3 months. It is pertinent to note that this Court left all contentions of all the parties open to be contended before the trial court.

7. I have perused the reply filed by the Petitioner to Respondent No. 1’s recall application before the Trial Court. It appears that, despite this court granting liberty to all parties to raise all contentions before the trial court, they failed to raise the limitation issue in their reply to the recall application before the Trial Court. Mr Naik says that this was an inadvertent error but asserts that the point of limitation, being a legal issue, need not have been pleaded in the reply. He contends that, hence, the legal aspect regarding the recall application being time-barred was never placed before the Trial Court for consideration and decision. Mr. Naik further argues that the limitation issue is germane to the matter and hence the same needs to be decided as well. In these circumstances, I am of the view that, in the interests of justice, the Petitioner should be given an opportunity to canvass his point of limitation before the Trial Court.

8. Hence, in view of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned Order dated 20th December 2025 is quashed and set aside. The Trial Court is directed to rehear the application seeking recall/modification of the Order dated 20th January 2018, including on the limitation point. The Petitioner, if he so desires, is permitted to file an additional reply to the application seeking recall/modification made by Respondent No. 1 before the Trial Court.

9. Since the Suit itself is of the year 2013, the Trial Court is requested to hear and decide the recall application dated 23rd August 2022 below Exhibit-D-15, within a period of two months from the date on which this Order is communicated to the Trial Court.

10. The Petition is partly allowed in view of the aforesaid terms.

11. Writ Petition is disposed of.