IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 91 OF 2009 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 92 OF 2009 SHRI. BETU CUSTA VELIP AND 16 ORS., ... Applicants Versus SHRI. ANTONIO DIAS E PINTO EXPIRED THROUGH LR AND 4 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. Sudin M. S. Usgaonkar,Advocate for the applicants. Coram:- SMT. R. S. DALVI, J. Date:- 30th April, 2009 P.C. There was an earlier suit filed by the applicants being Regular Civil suit No.87/88 in which the applicants obtained the decree declaring that they were the owners of the suit property described in paras 1 and 2 of that plaint and as shown in the plan which was annexed to the plaint. The applicants also obtained the order that the Mamlatdar of the Record of Rights or other appropriate authorities under the Land Revenue Code were directed to separate that property being the suit property in that suit under Survey No.56/1 of village Barshem as an independent holding of the applicants as the plaintiffs in that suit. The suit was filed only against the communidade of Barshem. 2. The plaintiffs in suit No.391/99/A in the Court of Civil Judge, S.D., Quepem challenged that judgment and decree. The plaintiffs in the suit No.391/99 are admittedly the holders of the neighbouring property. However, they claimed the suit property also. That suit was filed as suit for declaration. Later on by amendment a prayer of injunction was also granted. Hence, it came to be a suit for declaration as well as injunction though that was initially filed for declaration only. No injunctive relief was prayed for and granted pending the suit. The statement in that behalf has been made in para 3 of the stay application also. 3. Since the suit No.391/99 has been decreed, upon that decree the applicants have been injuncted from interfering with the suit property. The applicants claim that their settled possession since over a number of years would be disturbed by that decree. Such settled possession cannot be disturbed except under a suit for eviction. Consequently, after grant of judgment and decree declaring that the judgment and decree in the applicants' suit being suit No.87/88 to be null and void and setting it aside and granting consequent relief of injunction against the applicants, stay came to be granted by the learned Civil Judge, S.D., Quepem which passed that decree under the provisions of Order 41 Rule 5(2) of C.P.C. 4. Upon filing this appeal, this application has been taken out for further stay pending the appeal. The respondents have been served through bailiff in respect of this application. The application has been received by the respondent No.2 on behalf of the other respondents. None has appeared pursuant to service of notice. Stay granted by the Trial Court on 13.4.2009 is, therefore, extended pending the appeal. 5. It is clarified that the respondents shall be entitled to apply for vacating this stay upon notice to the petitioners after they are served with this order. The application is disposed of accordingly. SMT. R. S. DALVI, J. SMA