(1.) In March, 2022, Petitioners/plaintiffs, instituted Regular Civil Suit No. 19/2022 for declaration, permanent injunction and consequential reliefs under sec. 35, 27 and 38 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and moved an application for temporary injunction. Pending application, the learned trial Court vide order dtd. 24/3/2022 directed defendants, not to park their vehicles on the open Space at the entry of the shop and house of plaintiffs, till the next date of hearing. It was an ex-parte ad-interim order. Whereafter on 7/5/2022, ad-interim relief was confirmed. The learned Trial Court while granting temporary injunction, recorded the finding that plaintiffs have made out a prima facie case and further the balance of convenience tilts in their favour and would suffer irreparable loss in case relief was refused. That order was carried into Misc. Civil Appeal No. 47 of 2022, before the District Judge, Mapusa Goa.
(2.) The Learned Appellate Court reversed the order of the trial Court, on the ground that the suit open space in which defendants were parking their vehicles and allegedly obstructing the plaintiffs ' access to their shop was owned by Raghuraj V. Deshprabhu and that father of defendants were tenants in the suit open space, a part of property surveyed under no. 376/42. Accordingly, the appellate Court was of the opinion that defendants having shown their right over the suit open space, they cannot be injuncted from parking their vehicles. Obviously, appellate Court did not adhered to law regulating grant of injunction. The appellate Court, interfered with the exercise of discretion of the trial Court, and substituted its own discretion, without pointing out, or showing that the discretion has been exercised arbitrarily or capriciously, or that trial Court has, ignored the settled principles of law, regulating grant or refusal of interlocutory injunction.
(3.) In that view of the matter, case is made out for issuing notice to the respondents returnable on 5/9/2022.