IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 94 OF 2007 M/S. SHANTILAL KHUSHALDAS AND BROS. PVT. LTD AND ANR. ... Petitioners Versus SHRI. RAGHUVIR R. PAINGANKAR @ RAGHUVIR RAJARAM POINGUINKAR (DECEASED)REPRESENTED BY LR'S AND 4 ORS. ... Respondents Mr.C.Mascarenhas,Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr.V. Menezes, Advocate for he Respondents. Coram:- A.H.JOSHI, J. Date:- 22nd July, 2009 P.C. Heard learned Advocate C. Mascarenhas, for the Petitioners. 2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the observation contained in para No.25 of Order passed on 5.5..2006 passed in Special Civil Suit No.15/1994 which is identified by learned advocate for the appellant which reads as follows:- "25.................................................However a bare peep into the order dated 4.2.2000 of temporary injunction shows that it has not restrained the respondents no.2 to 6 in any manner. Be that as it may, the applicants or respondents no.3 and 4 have not been restrained from extracting or transporting the ore from the suit mine....................................................................". 3. It is clear that portion quoted in foregoing para, contained in the impugned order which is at page 116 describes as to what learned Trial Court has perceived and what appeared to him as regards the contents of the Order passed on 4th February 2000, while deciding the application under Order XXXIX,R2-A etc. in C.M.A.No.11/1994/A and C.M.A.No.12/1994/A in Special Civil Suit No.5/94/A. 4. Whenever any party or court has occasion to rely upon text of order dated 4.2.2000 referred to in the foregoing para, the recourse has to be to the text of said order than what is described about it in subsequent orders. In view of this position, the grievance of the petitioner about the contents of para 25 Order dated 5.5.2006 passed in Special Civil Suit No.5/94/A has no basis. 4. Present petition is therefore seen to be without cause of action and disposed of. A.H.JOSHI, J. ah