IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 39 OF 2008 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 25 OF 2008 SHRI. GOPAL DATTU PAL ... Applicant Versus ADMINISTRATOR OF COMMUNIDADES OF BARDEZ AND 8 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. Mr. P.Rao, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr. R.G. Ramani, Advocate for the Respondents no.1 and 2. Mr. A. Kansar, Advocate for the Respondents no.3 and 6. Mr. P.Arolkar, Advocate holding for Mr. Padiyar, Advocate for the Respondent no.7. Mr. M. Salkar, Advocate for the Respondents no.8 and 9. Coram:- R. C. CHAVAN, J. Date:- 21st August, 2008 P.C. This is an application for grant of interim relief pending hearing and final disposal of First Appeal No.25/2008, which has been admitted. The plaintiff claimed to have interest in Communidades affairs and therefore questioned allotment of plots of communidade to the respondent nos.3 and 6 and sought an injuntion restraining the respondents no.3 and 6 from undertaking activities of construction over the property. The suit was dismissed. The applicant wants that the respondents no.3 and 6 should be restrained from carrying out any cosntruction on the plots in question till the disposal of appeal, since the appeal has been admitted. On 7.2.2008 interim relief in terms of prayer clause (b) had been granted. I have heard both the learned Counsel for the Applicant and learned Counsel for the respondent nos.3 and 6. Since the suit itself has been dismissed after full trial and first appeal as admitted as a matter of course, it cannot be said that the appellant has a prima facie case to restrain the respondents' activities of construction on the plots that have been allowed to them. Therefore, rather than granting the interim relief restraining the respondents from proceeding with the construction on their plots, particularly in context of the facts that the appellant has no personal interest in the property, and if the construction is restrained now the loss that may be suffered by the respondents no.3 and 6 may not be compensable, it is directed that if the respondent nos.3 and 6 undertakes any activities during the pendency of the appeal, it would be solely at their risk and that they would not claim any equaties. The application is disposed off. R. C. CHAVAN, J. cg