SURESH D NAIK Vs. MANGUESH R WAGLE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners (defendants in the suit) have come in revision against Order dated 31st July 1998 of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Panaji, whereby the petitioners have been directed to deposit the keys of the suit premises in the Court on or before 4th August 1998 after removing the materials including boxes from inside the suit premises. The Order further states that in case of failure of the defendants to remove the material including boxes from the suit premises on 4th August 1998, the bailiff of the Court shall remove the same on 11th August 1998 at 10. 00 a. m. and after making inventory hand over the same to the defendants, who shall remain on site on 11th August 1998, failing which, the custody of the said materials shall be given to the plaintiff, who shall not be held liable for damages, if any, caused or which would be caused to the materials including the boxes.

(2.) IN order to appreciate the rival contentions it is necessary to look into the background in which the impugned order has been passed. The suit premises is a garage for keeping car and in respect of this suit premises there was litigation between the father of the respondent No. 1 (plaintiff in the suit) and landlord petitioner No. 2 (defendant No. 2 in the suit) for eviction which ended in favour of the father of respondent No. 1 in the year 1981. The case of the respondents is that they continue to be in possession of the suit garage but were forcibly dispossessed which possession was regained by them with the help of police in the first week of January 1992. However, when respondent No. 1 went to the suit premises on 8th January 1992, he saw his car lying out on the road and a new lock on the suit premises. Accordingly, the respondents filed a suit seeking mandatory injunction to remove the lock put to the suit premises as well as the materials including boxes dumped in the suit premises. Mandatory injunction to restore the ramps in front of the entrance door of the suit premises was also sought. The respondents, by way of temporary mandatory injunction, sought removal of the lock as well as materials including boxes dumped in the suit premises besides restoration of the ramps in the suit premises in order to facilitate smooth entry of the car in the suit premises. The trial Court had granted temporary mandatory order which was challenged before this Court in Appeal from Order No. 33 of 1996 and the matter was remanded to the trial Judge. On remand, the trial Judge vide order dated 17th April 1997 held:--

(3.) LEARNED Senior Counsel Shri M. S. Usgaonkar argued on behalf of the petitioners and learned advocate Shri Lotlikar argued on behalf of the respondents.