KHATIJABI ABOOBAKER Vs. KARMA CONSTRUCTIONS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) UPON hearing learned Counsel the appeal is admitted and since I am satisfied that the points raised by the parties have been sufficiently argued at considerable length the same, by consent, is taken for final hearing.

(2.) THIS Appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Margao, in charge of Vasco Court, dated 22nd December, 1994, in Civil Miscellaneous Applications No. 81 of 1994 and 84 of 1994 attached to the Special Civil Suit No. 44 of 1994, whereby the learned Judge has dismissed by a common order two applications of the appellants for temporary injunction. By the first one dated 6th May, 1994 the appellants sought to restrain the respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3, their heirs, agents, servants and legal representatives, from carrying out any construction or interfering in any manner whatsoever in the suit property and further to maintain the status quo till the final disposal of the suit on merits. In the second one dated 16th May, 1994 the trial Court was asked to restrain the respondents Nos. 1 to 3 from carrying out any construction or interfering in any manner whatsoever in the suit property by maintaining the status quo till the final disposal of the application for temporary injunction dated 6th May, 1994.

(3.) BOTH these applications were filed in a suit instituted by the appellants under section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 praying that the respondents, their heirs or legal representatives be ordered to restore the possession of an area of 210 sq. mts. to the appellants at the exact place where the original leased premises, as described in para 6 of the petition, stood. A further relief sought for was that the appellants be permitted to repair/reconstruct/rebuild the demolished leased premises without any interference from the respondents, their heirs, agents, servants or legal representatives along with a prayer that the respondents should also be restrained from interfering in any manner whatsoever with the appellants peaceful possession of the leased premises.