1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 39 OF 2011 . 1. Shri Armando Serrao, aged 57 years, s/o late Antonio Santana Serrao and his wife 2. Smt. Leandrina Serrao, aged 48 years, both (1) and (2) resident of House No.192/1, 3rd Ward, P.O. Colva, Salcete, Goa, 403 708. …. Appellants V e r s u s 1. The Village Panchayat of Sernabatim, Vanelim, Colva and Gandaulim having office at Colva, Salcete Goa. 2. The Town and Country Planning Department, South Goa District Office, “B” Wing, 4th Floor, Osia Commercial Arcade, Margao Goa. 3. Shri John Francisco Serrao, aged 63 years, s/o late Antonio Santana Serrao and his wife 4. Smt. Juliet Serrao, aged 57 years, both (2) and (3) resident of House No.192, 3rd Ward, Colva, Salcete Goa. 5. Mrs. Philomena Serrao, aged 50 years, wife of late Shri Felix Menino Jesus Serrao, residing at Dnyneshwar Nagar Co-operative Housing Society, Building No.01, 4th Floor, 2 Flat No.19, Wadala, Mumbai 400 031. 6. The State of Goa, through the Chief Secretary having office at the Secretariat, Porvorim Goa. … Respondents Shri Zeller C. D'souza, Advocate for the appellants. Shri E. O. Mendes, Advocate for respondent nos. 3 and 4. Shri V. Rodrigues, Addl. Government Advocate for respondent nos. 2 and 6. CORAM : F. M. REIS, J DATE :14 th SEPTEMBER, 2011 . P. C.:- Heard Shri Zeller De Souza, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants, Shri E. O. Mendes, learned Counsel appearing for respondent nos. 3 and 4, who appeared on the basis of the caveat application and Shri V. Rodrigues, the learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent nos. 2 & 6. 2. The above appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 23.08.2011, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, South Goa, Margao in Civil Suit No.4/2011 3 whereby the application for temporary injunction filed by the appellants restraining the respondents from obstructing the suit access came to be rejected. The suit filed by the appellants was for declaration as well as inter-alia for permanent injunction restraining the respondent nos. 3 and 4/defendant nos. 3 and 4 from in any manner carrying out any construction on the suit access as shown in the plan annexed to the Deed of Partition dated 08.06.1998. During the pendency of the suit, the appellants sought for a temporary injunction on the same terms. The learned Judge whilst passing the impugned order has come to the conclusion that there is no prima facie case in favour of the appellants and that they had failed to show any construction actually done on the reserved access and that there is no case made out for any temporary mandatory injunction. 3. The learned Judge has noted at para 14 of the impugned order that it is material to note that respondent nos. 3 and 4 neither have any intention nor they have taken any steps to block the said reserved access and that they are even ready to give an undertaking to that effect or to abide by any condition to that effect if imposed by the Court as submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for the said 4 respondents during the course of his arguments. 4. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, considering what has been noted by the learned Judge at para 14 of the impugned order that the said respondents were not interested to cause any obstruction to the reserved access as mentioned in the Deed of Partition and further that the respondent nos. 3 and 4 were even prepared to give an undertaking to that effect, I find that no interference is called for in the impugned order in case the rights of the appellants are protected to the effect that no obstruction is carried out to the reserved access during the pendency of the suit. Shri Z. D'Souza, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants has pointed out that as the learned Judge has not passed any order against respondent nos. 3 and 4 not to obstruct the said reserved access, there is apprehension that the said respondents may obstruct to the said reserved access during the pendency of the suit. 5. Accordingly, Shri E. O. Mendes, learned Counsel appearing for respondent nos. 3 and 4 has made a statement upon instructions from the respondent nos. 3 and 4 that the respondent nos. 3 and 4 shall not obstruct in any manner the 5 reserved access in the Deed of Partition dated 08.06.1998. To avoid any ambiguity about the location of the said reserved access, both the learned Counsel have duly identified the said reserved access in the plan at page 116 which is duly signed by both the Counsel appearing for the parties. Shri E.O. Mendes, learned Counsel appearing for respondent nos. 3 and 4 makes a statement that the access identified in blue colour in the said plan at page 116 shall not be obstructed in any manner during the pendency of the above suit. The said statement made by the learned Counsel for respondent nos. 3 and 4 is accepted. 6. In view of the above, I find no merit in the above appeal and subject to the said statement of the learned Counsel appearing for respondent nos. 3 and 4 referred to above, the Appeal From Order stands disposed of with no order as to costs. F. M. REIS, J at*