IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 267 OF 2008 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 102 OF 2008 SHRI. SATU B. GAONKAR AND 6 ORS., ... Applicants Versus SHRI. MHALU PURSO GAONKAR ... Respondent Mr. Sudesh Usgaonkar, Advocate for the Appellants. Mr. V. A. Lavande, Advocate for the Respondent. Coram:- R. M. SAVANT, J. Date:- 4th November, 2009 ORAL ORDER The above Civil Application has been filed by the appellant seeking stay of the operation of the impugned Judgment and Decree dated 25.04.2008 passed by the learned District Judge, South Goa, Margao, in Regular Civil Appeal no. 27/2008. The above Second Appeal has been admitted on 19.03.2009. The Appeal has been filed against the Judgment and Decree of the lower Appellate Court dated 25.04.2008. The lower Appellate Court whilst allowing the Appeal and Decreeing the suit partly, has recorded a finding that the defendants in the said suit i.e. the appellants herein have failed to prove that they are in possession of the suit property. 2. On behalf of the original plaintiff i.e. the respondent herein, an affidavit in reply has been filed. In the said affidavit, it has been averred that an interim injunction was granted by the Trial Court on 29.12.1997, which was operating against the defendants i.e. the appellants herein till the disposal of the suit on 29.02.2008. Thereafter, in the Appeal filed by the original plaintiff i.e. the respondent herein, an Order came to be passed on 02.04.2008 thereby an injunction came to be granted in the same terms as was passed by the Trial Court restraining the appellants herein from interfering with the suit property till the disposal of the Appeal. The said injunction which was granted by the Trial Court was therefore operating till the filing of the Appeal and thereafter till the disposal of the Appeal. Hence, it is abundantly clear that apart from the finding recorded by the lower Appellate Court, there was an injunction operating against the appellants herein from interfering with the suit property all throughout the trial. It would also be significant to note that the respondent is also held to be in possession by the lower Appellate Court. 3. In the light of the aforesaid conspectus of facts, no relief can be granted in the above Civil Application, which is accordingly rejected. R. M. SAVANT, J. arp/*