IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 339 OF 2011 MR. H. P. PARASRAMPURIA ... Petitioner Versus MRS. PEARL N. SAYED AND 2 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. J. P. Mulgaonkar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. A. F. Diniz, Advocate for respondent no.1. Coram:- A. P. LAVANDE, J. Date:- 22nd August, 2011 P.C. Time to carry out amendment to delete respondent no. 2 from the cause title is extended till date. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. 2. Heard Mr. J. P. Mulgaonkar, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. A. F. Diniz, learned Advocate for respondent no.1. None appears for respondent nos. 3 though served. 3. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner who is plaintiff in Special Civil Suit No.12/2008/A pending before Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ponda has challenged the order dated 29.3.2011 passed by the learned Judge by which application dated 23.7.2010 filed by the respondent no.1 for setting aside exparte order dated 17.10.2008 passed in the suit to contest the application for temporary injunction in the above suit has been allowed. 4. In so far as setting aside exparte order in the suit is concerned, in my considered opinion remedy under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is available to the petitioner. However, in so far as setting aside order of injunction which according to the petitioner has been passed without hearing him, the application filed by the respondent no.1 has to be construed as an application under Order 39 Rule 4 of C.P.C. As such against an order granting relief under Order 39 Rule 4 in terms of Order 43(r) of C.P.C. as amended an appeal from Order would be maintainable. 5. In so far as order passed by the trial Court setting aside exparte order is concerned, I am of the considered opinion that this is not a fit case in which this Court should exercised supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227. By impugned order respondent no.1 has been given opportunity to contest in a suit for specific performance on merits. Therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order, even if, one of the reasons given by the trial Court for setting aside exparte order in the suit is unsustainable in law as contended by Mr. Mulgaonkar. It is well settled that jurisdiction under Article 227 has to be exercised to advance cause of justice. In the present case trial Court by impugned order has only allowed respondent no.1/defendant no.1 to file written statement on record. This being the position, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order in so far as it sets aside the exparte order against respondent no.1. In so far as setting aside injunction order is concerned liberty to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedy in accordance with law, if he is so advised. Needless to mention that all the contentions of the respondents in that regard are kept open. It is made clear that the findings given herein are for the limited purpose of disposing of this petition. 6. Interim order dated 20.6.2011 stands vacated. Parties to appear before trial Court on 21.9.2011 at 10.00 a.m. A. P. LAVANDE, J. vn