1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 386 OF 2009 1. Smt. Shobhavati Ranganath Naik Dhulapkar, wife of late Ranganath Manguesh Naik Dhulapkar, Major of age, housework, 2. Shri Jitendra Ranganath Naik Dhulapkar, Son of late Ranganath Manguesh Naik Dhulapkar, major of age, married, service. 3. Shri Esso Alias Suresh L. Naik, ( Since deceased ) 3(a) Smt. Sheetal Naik, 3(b) Miss Saburi Naik, 3(c) Miss Snusha Naik, Since minor through her next friend, Smt. Sheetal Naik, All residents of Khadapabandh, Ponda Goa. .... Petitioners V e r s u s 1. Shri Shripad Vithoba Shetkar, son of late Shri Vithoba Shetkar, major of age, married, service, and his wife, 2. Smt. Rupashri Shripad Shetkar, major in age, teacher, Both residing behind Almeida High School, Khadpabandh, Ponda Goa. 3. Ponda Municipal Council, Through its Chief Officer, Ponda Goa. .... Respondents. Mr. A. D. Bhobe, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. J. Godinho, Advocate for the Respondent nos. 1 and 2. 2 Coram :- A. H. JOSHI, J. Date :- 31 st JULY, 2009. JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and is heard by consent. 2. Petitioners are challenging the order dated 03.03.2009 passed by the District Judge-II at Panajim in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 61/2008. By this order the petitioners appeal has been dismissed. 3. In the trial Court, the petitioners' application for temporary injunction was rejected. 4. Learned Appellate Court has recorded the finding that the construction subject matter had commenced around two years prior to the filing of the suit and had advanced far ahead. The trial Court had held that the question as to whether exactly what is the measurement of the set off to be left, will have to be decided on merit. 5. In this background, the Appellate Court too found that appellants do not have prima facie good case nor had balance of convenience in their favour. 3 6. The order passed by the Appellate Court is well reasoned and is passed upon consideration of record. It is not shown that any material already before the Court, below has not been considered. 7. View taken by the Appellate Court is not just possible but is plausible as well. Therefore, no indulgence is called for. 8. The petition has no merit and is dismissed. Rule is discharged with costs. A. H. JOSHI, J. at*