(Spl.-H.C.A.S.,C.D.,78-e) FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO. 482 OF 2003 --------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Note, Office Memoranda of Quorum, appearances, Court’s Court’s or Judge’s Orders orders or directions and Registrar’s orders. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri J. Godinho, advocate for the petitioners. Shri S. Karpe, advocate appointed under Legal Aid Scheme for respondent no.1. Shri V. Pangam, advocate appointed under Legal Aid Scheme for respondent no.2. Shri J. A. Lobo, advocate appointed under Legal Aid Scheme for respondent no.3 & 4. CORAM : D. G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 18th March, 2004 P.C.: Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the respondents. Being an interlocutory Order, I am not inclined to interfere in exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, specially when the learned District Judge had held that the respondents/plaintiffs have an easementary right of necessity and the access is blocked. - 2 - 2. The only point that was urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners was that a mandatory injunction for opening the gate should not have been issued, because a mandatory order cannot be passed to restore status quo ante. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the suit was filed on 14th May, 1999, while the gate in question was fixed by the petitioners on 12th May, 1999, i.e. two days prior to the filing of the suit. Learned counsel for the respondents dispute this and submit that the gate was fixed on 18th May, 1992, i.e after service of the summons. As held by the Supreme Court in the case of Dorab Cawasji Dorab Cawasji Dorab Cawasji Warden Warden Warden vs. Coomi Sorab Warden & vs. Coomi Sorab Warden & vs. Coomi Sorab Warden & Ors. Ors. Ors., reported in AIR 1990 SC 867, the Court is entitled to grant a mandatory injunction and restore status quo ante, specially when in contemplation of the suit the defendants attempted to defeat the plaintiff’s claim by fixing a gate. - 3 - Hence, I find no merit in the Writ Petition which is hereby rejected. D. G. KARNIK, J. mc.