THOMAS OLIVEIRA Vs. PAUL PRECIOSO MATEUS DE SOUZA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of the judgment dated 31st Aug., 1987, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Margao, whereby he partly allowed the application filed by the present first respondent restraining the appellant from interfering with the suit property except that he shall have the right to enjoy the coconut and mango trees existing in the suit property.

(2.) The first respondent has filed a suit for permanent injunction against the appellant alleging that the appellant was attempting to sub-divide the suit property although the same was in possession and occupation of the plaintiff/first respondent herein. He stated that he has got his residential house in the said property and has been in enjoyment of the property for over 30 years by cultivating therein paddy and occasionally, naschinim. Along-with the suit, an application for temporary injunction restraining the present fourth respondent from allowing the sub-division of the property and the appellant herein from interfering with his possession, was moved. By his impugned judgment, the learned Additional District Judge granted partly the said injunction, for the restrained the fourth respondent from granting final permission of the sub-division of the suit property and while restraining the appellant from interfering in the suit property, allowed him to enjoy the fruits of the mango and coconut trees existing in the property.

(3.) Notice of the hearing was given to all the parties and only the appellant and the fourth respondent were represented by counsel. The respondent No. 1 failed to appear although in the last hearing of the case he had been specifically warned' when he sought, for the second time, the adjournment of the hearing, that no further adjournment would be granted to him and the matter would be heard in any case, today. Inspite of this warning, the first respondent chose to be absent. It may be mentioned also that on 15th April, 1988, the said respondent has sought an adjournment on the ground that his advocate was sick. This adjournment was granted and the matter was placed for hearing on 21st April. On that day once again the first respondent moved an application for adjournment on the same ground that his counsel was ill. It was in this background that the first respondent was warned that though an adjournment was granted, no further adjournment would be granted on the ground that his advocate was sick. Today, a telegram was sent by the said advocate seeking adjournment on the same ground of his inability to appear in Court. It maybe mentioned also that before that the first respondent had sought an adjournment of the hearing of the appeal on the ground that he was intending to file cross-objections and that he was actually filing them separately. However, though adjournment was granted, do cross objections at all were filed. In this background, the hearing was taken up.