IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 105 OF 2007 SHRI. JOAO ATAIDE C. V. COLACO AND ANR., ... Appellants Versus M/S. DHARTI CONSTRUCTION AND ANR., ... Respondents Mr. Sudesh Usgaonkar, Advocate with Mr. Sanjay Sardessai, Advocate for the Appellants. Mr. Mario Pinto Almeida, Advocate for the Respondents no.1 And 2 Coram:- R. C. CHAVAN, J. Date:- 25th August, 2008 ORAL ORDER This appeal is directed against an Order passed by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Margao in Special Civil Suit NO.104/2005, whereby he allowed the respondents/plaintiffs application Exbt.3 for an injunction. 2. I have heard Advocate Shri Usgaonkar for the appellants/defendants and Advocate Shri Almeida for the respondents/plaintiffs. With the help of both the learned Counsel I have gone through the copies of documents relied on which have been placed on record. It may be seen that the respondents made following prayer in the application: "In the circumstances it is prayed that: (a) Pending the final disposal of the suit the respondents their agents servants and representatives be restrained from in any way interfering with the suit property and in any way addressing any correspondence or doiing any acts for the disconnection of the electricity power, water and from in any way obstructing or impeding the execution of the documents in favour of the would be purchaser and from in any way impeding the plaintiff from acting as an agent of the defendants and using the power of attorney dated 10th July 2000 and acting in furtherance of the agreement for sale cum construction dated 120.07.2000; (b) Pending the final disposal of the present application the respondents their agents servants and representatives be restrained by an ad interim ex-parte temporary injunction from in any way interfering with the suit property and in any way addressing any correspondence or doing any acts for the disconnection of the electricity power, water and from in any way obstructing or impeding the execution of the documents in favour of the would be purchasers and from in any way impeding the applicant from acting as an agent of the defendants and using the power of attorney dated 10th July 2000 and acting in furtherance of the agreement for sale cum construction dated 12.07.2000." 3. The learned Trial Judge while issuing notice to the appellants/defendants passed the following Order: "Perused the plaint, documents and injunction application. Heard Avocate, Shri M.P.Almeida. Defendants to maintain status-que namely not to disconnect or get disconnected through any authorities electricity power and water connection which is available to the structures existiing in the suit property bearing Chalta No.53 of P.T. Sheet 79 of Margao City Survey, defendants also not to disturb plaintiffs possession and execution of the work in the suit property - till next date. Issue emergent show cause notice of this order and the injunction application to the defendants. Call on 4.8.2005 at 2.30 p.m." Dated 29.7.2005 Sd/- (V. S. R. Dessai ) Civil Judge, Senior Division., M A R G A O. " 4. This Order was subsequently confirmed. There can be no question of interfering in injunction in so far as appellants' electricity connection and water supply are protected. As far as injunction restraining the appellant not to disturb the respondents possession and execution of the work, since it was not sought, the learned Trial Judge was not justified granting injunction bv the impugned order. The apppeal is therefore partly allowed. The impugned order, so as it far travels beyond the prayers in the injunction application is set aside. 5. All Civil Applications are disposed off. R. C. CHAVAN, J. cg