IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA LETTER PATENT APPEAL NO. 4 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 63 OF 2008 SHRI. CONCEICAO FERNANDES AND 3 ORS., ... Appellants Versus SMT. DUMETINA REBELLO AND 2 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. A. F. Diniz, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Valmiki Menezes, Advocate for the respondents. Coram:- P. B. MAJMUDAR & U. D. SALVI, JJ. Date:- 18th March, 2009 P.C. Mr. Valmiki states that he is appearing for the respondents. 2. This Letter Patent Appeal is filed against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition no.63/2008 dated 12.12.2008. By the aforesaid order, learned Single Judge dismissed the said Writ Petition summarily. The learned Single Judge has however directed the Trial Court to expedite the suit being Regular Civil Suit no.128/2005/III. 3. The appellants herein are the original plaintiffs of the Regular Civil Suit no.128/2005/III. The said suit is filed for declaration injunction on the ground that the respondents (original defendants in the suit) are the trespassers and they have no legal right over the suit property. In the said suit, the appellants/original plaintiffs moved an application for interim injunction under Order 39 of CPC. 4. The Trial Court dismissed the said application against which Misc. Civil Appeal no.12/2006 was preferred by the present appellants under order 43 of CPC being Misc. Civil Appeal no.12/2006. The Appellate Court dismissed the said appeal against which the appellants preferred Writ Petition before the learned Single Judge under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that both the Courts have concurrently held against the petitioner and accordingly the Writ Petition was dismissed. The suit was ordered to be expedited. 5. In our view, the learned Single Judge has rightly not interfered with the order of the Trial Court and Appellate Court as the powers of the learned Single Judge under Article 227 of Constitution of India are very limited. It is required to be noted that the present proceedings arises out of an interim application for injunction and the suit is still at large before the Trial Court. It cannot be said that the Trial Court or the Appellate Court committed any error of law which was required to be corrected in a petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India. Considering the said aspect, we do not find any substance in the said appeal. 6. The learned Counsel for the appellants however submitted that, it may be observed that at the time of deciding the suit, the observations made by Trial Court and the Appellate Court while deciding interim application may not be taken into consideration. 7. In our view, whatever observations are being made by the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court are only in connection with deciding interim application. The Trial Court has to decide the suit on its own merits and as per the evidence on record. The Trial Court while deciding the suit shall not take into account the observations made by it or by Appellate Court at the time of deciding application under Order 39 of CPC, as such observations are tentative in nature and such observations are made only in order to find out prima facie case. 8. It is clarified that we have not expressed our opinion on merits of the case, and the Trial Court may accordingly proceed with the suit in accordance with law and may decide the suit within the time limit given by the learned Single Judge. 9. So far as the time limit given by the learned Single Judge is concerned, it is outer limit and if the Trial Court decides to dispose of the suit earlier, it is for the Trial Court to decide the suit as per the availability of time and subject to other pending cases. 10. Subject to what is stated above, this appeal is dismissed. P. B. MAJMUDAR, J. U. D. SALVI, J. ef.