IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 748 OF 2009 SHRI MEGHASHYAM RAMCHANDRA NAIK AND 4 ORS., ... Petitioners Versus SHRI MAHENDRA PURUSHOTTAM NAIK GAUNEKAR AND 3 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. N. K. Sawaikar, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. S.D. Padiyar, Advocate for Respondents Nos.3 & 4. Coram:- N. A. BRITTO, J. Date:- 30th July, 2010 P.C.: Heard learned Counsel on behalf of both parties. 2. Malkumi Naik was registered as a Mundkar in respect of a house existing in Survey No.21/2 of Bandora Village. The said property belongs to respondents nos.1 & 2, the bhatkars, who have chosen not to appear before this Court. The said Malkumi Naik after she was registered as a Mundkar under Section 29(4) of the Mundkars (Protection from Eviction) Act, 1975 filed an application for purchase of the dwelling house and pending the said application she expired. There is no dispute that the said Mrs. Malkumi Naik did not have any descendants. The other parties to the suit were her collaterals i.e. either brothers or their spouses or sisters or their spouses or their children. They were all brought on record in the purchase proceedings and now continued to be on record by virtue of the order passed by the Administrative Tribunal, and the said purchase proceedings are pending. 3. The bhatkars i.e. respondents nos.1 & 2 herein executed a deed of transfer dated 30/11/2003 in favour of defendant no.3. The plaintiffs then filed a suit being Regular Civil Suit No.99/2006/C and in that filed an application for temporary injunction which was granted by the learned trial Court by order dated 18/06/2008, but the said order was reversed by the learned District Judge by order dated 13/10/2009 impugned in this Writ Petition. The application for temporary injunction was filed with a view to restrain defendants nos.3 & 4, from acting on the basis of deed of transfer dated 30/11/2003 and/or continuing with mutation proceedings which were being taken; from commencing, continuing, carrying on any construction; selling, alienating, encumbering the dwelling house; creating any third party rights, etc. As already stated, the said application was granted by the learned trial Court by order dated 18/06/2008. However, what is seen from both the orders of the Courts below is that the Courts below have not even tried to find out whether the plaintiffs had made out a case for the grant of temporary injunction. The learned trial Court did take note of Section 3 of the Mundkar Act, but did not at all consider whether either the plaintiffs or for that matter defendant no.3 was entitled to inherit the dwelling house. The learned trial Court as well as the first appellate court also did not consider the other principles which were required to be followed before an application for temporary injunction was granted or refused. 4. In the light of that, the orders of both the Courts below are hereby set aside and the matter remanded to learned Civil Judge, Senior division at Ponda, to reconsider the application for temporary injunction filed by the plaintiffs, in the light of the Mundkars (Protection form Eviction )Act, 1975 and other principles governing the grant for temporary injunction. The parties to appear before the learned trial Court on 23/08/2010 at 10.00 a.m. Till the application for temporary injunction is decided both the parties shall maintain status quo in respect of the suit house. N. A. BRITTO, J. NH