IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 323 OF 2008 MR. VILLA NOVA C. L. FERNANDES ... Petitioner Versus MRS. ANNIE TERESA D'SOUZA AND 2 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. Coelho Pereira, Senior Advocate with Mr. Somnath Karpe, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N. N. Sardessai, Advocate for the respondents. Coram:- C. L. PANGARKAR, J. Date:- 30th March, 2009 P.C. This writ petition has been filed against the order passed by the District Judge, Panaji, whereby he allowed the appeal and rejected the application for injunction and vacated the order of injunction passed by the Trial Court. 2. The petitioner is the original plaintiff. He had instituted the suit claiming a right of access through the property of the defendants. It is his contention that the defendants are making construction and are obstructing his right of way. The plaintiff contends that he has been using this access for more than 65 years and claims adverse possession over the suit property. The defendants resisted the application and contended that the plaintiff has never been using the suit property as an access and the plot of plaintiff has a road on three sides and therefore, there is no question of the plaintiff making use of the land belonging to the defendants as an access. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents. 4. The learned Judge of the Trial Court granted the injunction and the Appellate Court has vacated the injunction. 5. First of all it must be mentioned here that the plaintiff has come out with a case of easementary right and the plaintiff is claiming adverse possession. The idea of adverse possession is totally different from easementary right. It is not clear from the plaint whether the plaintiff is claiming adverse possession or easementary right. 6. The learned Judge of the First Appellate Court has found that the plaintiff has other access and therefore, there is no question of claiming right or way. The Appellate Court found that there is no prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff and holding so, he has rejected the application. After having gone through the reasons given by the Appellate Court, I find that he has rightly observed that since other access is available to the plaintiff there is no prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff. When alternate access is available, there is no question of plaintiff suffering any irreparable loss nor could it cause any prejudice to the plaintiff. In view of this, I do not see any merit in the writ petition and the order passed by the Appellate Court is confirmed. C. L. PANGARKAR, J. lh/.