1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NOS. 328 AND 338 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 328 of 2008 1. Shri Ubaldina Fernandes, and 3 others. .. Petitioners. Versus 1. Shri Josino Fernandes and others 16 .. Respondents. Mr. Nitin Sardessai,Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. F.E. Noronha, Advocate for the respondent Nos.1 To 15. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.338 of 2008. Shri Josino Fernandes and 14 Ors. .. Petitioners. Versus Shri Ubaldino Fernandes and 5 Ors. .. Respondents. Mr. F.E. Noronha,Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Nitin Sardessai, Advocate for the respondents. 2 CORAM :- C. L. PANGARKAR, J. DATE : 17 th FEBRUARY,2009. ORAL ORDER : 1. Heard the Counsel for the petitioners and the respondents. 2. These writ petitions are filed against the order passed by the Ad hoc District Judge-II, Margao whereby he dismissed the appeal filed by the present petitioners/ respondents in W.P. No.338/2008. The respondents have instituted a suit for restraining the petitioners from alienating the suit property or interfering with the said property or in any way changing the nature of the property. In that suit, the respondents had prayed for temporary injunction. The learned Civil Judge granted the application and restrained the petitioners from planting any trees, making any construction and alienating the property. Being aggrieved by that, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the District Judge, which came to be decided by the Ad hoc District Judge, who dismissed the appeal. 3. The suit was filed by the respondents on the 3 ground that the property has been sold to the petitioners by the other respondents in breach of the agreement for pre- emption. The learned Judges have found that the respondents have made out a prima facie case. Balance of convenience lies in maintaining status-quo by the parties. There are two concurrent findings and it is not shown as to how such findings can be said to be perverse particularly when it is not disputed that there was pre-emption agreement between the respondents. In view of the fact that there is no perversity in any of the orders passed by the learned Judges, there is no ground to admit these writ petitions. 4. Mr. Sardessai further submits that this Court may direct the Trial Court to expedite the hearing of the civil suit that is pending before it. In view of this, it is directed that the hearing of the civil suit pending before the Civil Judge, be expedited and as far as possible the same may be decided within a period of 6 months. With these observations, both the writ petitions are disposed of. C. L. PANGARKAR, J. SMA