CHANDRAKANT VISHNU KOLHAPURKAR Vs. SHAMBA SUKA MANDREKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff is the petitioner. The suit filed by the plaintiff is one for injunction restraining the defendants/respondents from interfering with the possession of the suit property and also the pathway. Even though ex-parte injunction was granted at the instance of the plaintiff at the initial stage, when the defendants contested the matter the injunction application has been dismissed by the trial Court. Appeal filed against that order before the Addl. District Judge, Panaji also ended in its dismissal.

(2.) THE respondents are not represented before me. I see from the endorsement in the file that they have refused to receive the notice issued by this Court. So I had the benefit of only hearing the counsel for the petitioner.

(3.) AGGRIEVED by the aforesaid two orders, the petitioner filed this revision application. The plaintiff claimed tenancy of the suit property and consequently possession also. The defendants namely, the respondents herein, contend that they are mundcars and staying in the mundcarial house which is situated in the suit property and they did not interfere in the possession of the petitioner. They also assert that the pathway in the suit property cannot be exclusively claimed by the plaintiff. It is a pathway which is being used by the respondents. The trial Court found that the plaintiff is not entitled for injunction. It is relevant to note the trial Courts order where the contention of the defendants has been extracted as follows :---