IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 19 OF 2009 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 10 OF 2009 SHRI. SHIVA K. GADEKAR (DECEASED) THROUGH LR'S ... Applicant Versus SHRI. LUDOVIGO G. RODRIGUES AND 3 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. S. D. Lotlikar, Senior Advocate with Ms. G. Xettigar, Advocate for the Applicant/Appellant. Mr. M. B. D' Costa, Senior Advocate with Mr. John A. Lobo, Advocate for Respondent no.4. Coram:- F. M. REIS, J. Date:- 16th July, 2010 P.C. Heard the learned Counsel for the Applicant and the Respondent. 2. This is an application for stay of the impugned Judgment and Decree passed by the Courts below which are the subject matter of the above Second Appeal. By the Judgment passed by learned Trial Judge, the Appellants, their family members, agents, servants or any other person acting on their behalf are restrained perpetually from constructing/reconstructing or doing any type of masonry work in the suit property or interfering with the same in whatsoever manner and to restore the suit property to its original condition by demolishing the illegal construction along with new construction done in the suit property. 3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Applicant submitted that there is no categorical finding passed by the Courts below as far as the possession of the suit property is concerned. 4. On the other hand, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondent has disputed the contention of the learned Counsel for the Appellant and submitted that the Courts below have, after appreciating the evidence on record, come to the conclusion that the Respondents are entitled for the reliefs as sought for in the suit. Without going into the merits of the rival contentions, I find that in the interest of justice considering the relief granted by the learned Trial Judge, it is evident that there are some structures which are in occupation of the Appellant which are held to be illegal and consequently the same are ordered to be demolished. The Second Appeal is already been admitted by this Court and in the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the above application can be disposed of on putting the Applicant/Appellant to some terms which will be subject to final Orders to be passed in the above Second Appeal. 5. In the circumstances, I pass the following : ORDER The impugned Judgment and Order passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division at Mapusa, to the extent that it restrains the Applicant/Appellant from interfering with the suit property in whatsoever manner and to restore the suit property to its original condition by demolishing the illegal construction along with new construction done in the suit property shall be stayed subject to the Applicant/Appellant not creating any third party right or carrying out any plantation therein or carry out any new construction thereon. The remaining part of the relief granted by the learned Trial Judge shall continue in operation during the pendency of the above Appeal. These reliefs are granted to the Applicant/Appellant on condition that the Applicant/Appellant depositing in this Court a sum of Rs.10,000/- every year until the disposal of the above Appeal. The first instalment shall be deposited on or before 31.12.2010 and continue to deposit every year. The said amount deposited shall be without prejudice and rights to the contentions of the parties and shall be subject to final Orders to be passed in the above suit. The Application is disposed of accordingly with no orders as to costs. F. M. REIS, J. arp/*