SHRI BABAL VIR RESIDENT OF BHATI SHIRODA, PONDA, GOA Vs. SHRI ANIL BALKRISHNA GURAV SHIRODKAR, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY SHRI UMESH JAGANATH FADTO, RESIDENT OF BANDORA, PONDA, GOA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Shri Sudin Usgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner. None for the Respondent. During the course of the hearing of the above Petition, Shri Usgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner has pointed out that during the pendency of the above Writ Petition, the Petitioner has been declared as a tenant by the learned Mamlatdar by an Order dated 23.01.2011. The learned Counsel further pointed out that in the suit filed by the Respondent, the learned Trial Judge had dismissed the application for temporary injunction but, however, in an Appeal before the Lower Appellate Court, the application filed by the Respondent for temporary injunction came to be allowed. Thereafter, being aggrieved by the Order passed by the Lower Appellate Court dated 31.03.2003, the Petitioner filed the above Writ Petition wherein by an Order dated 18.03.2004, the said impugned Order dated 31.03.2003 was stayed by this Court after the Writ Petition came to be admitted. The learned Counsel further pointed that the stay granted by this Court by Order dated 18.03.2004 still continues. The learned Counsel as such submits that in view of the subsequent event, the Petitioner is entitled to file an application under Order 39 Rule read with Section of the Civil Procedure Code to seek modification/variation of the Order of temporary injunction passed in favour of the Respondents. The learned Counsel as such submits that the Petitioner should be permitted to withdraw the above Writ Petition with liberty to file an appropriate application under Order 39 Rule read with Section of the Civil Procedure of Code in accordance with law and further that the interim protection granted by this Court by Order dated 18.03.2004 should continue till then.

(2.) I have duly considered the submissions of the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner. Taking note of the contention of the learned Counsel that on account of subsequent events the injunction granted in favour of the Respondent would not survive, is a matter which can be gone into by the learned Trial Judge in case an application under Order 39 Rule read with Section of the Civil Procedure Code is filed by the Petitioner. In view of the fact that the Respondent has failed to remain present and, in the interest of justice, I find it appropriate that the Petitioner be allowed to withdraw the above Writ Petition with liberty to file an appropriate application under Order 39 Rule read with Section of the Civil Procedure of Code before the learned Trial Judge which the learned Trial Judge will consider on its own merits in accordance with law. The interim Order passed by this Court on 18.03.2004 shall continue until disposal of any such application if filed within one month from today.