1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CIVIL APPLICATION NO.296 OF 2008 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.285 OF 2008 Smt. Yeshoda Shankar Naik & 20 Ors. …. Applicants V/s Bhagwan Vishnu Naik & 43 Ors. …. Respondents Mr. S.G. Dessai, Senior Advocate with Mr. V. Parsekar, Advocate for the Applicants. Mr. S.D. Lotlikar, Senior Advocate with Mr. P. Lotlikar, Advocate for Respondents No.1 to 18, 32 to 35. Mr. G. Shirodkar, Additional Government Advocate for Respondents No.43 & 44. CORAM : N. A. BRITTO, J. DATE : 15 th APRIL, 2010 ORDER : Heard. 2. By the present application, the appellants/plaintiffs seek an injunction against respondents no. 1 to 18 to restrain them from interfering in the suit property and or cutting the trees therefrom and respondent no.43 from granting any licence for cutting of the said trees. 3. The appeal along with application for injunction were filed on 1/09/2008 and the appeal was admitted on 10/12/2008. 4. The appeal has been filed against the dismissal of the suit of the 2 appellants/plaintiffs by judgment/decree dated 30/05/2008. 5. Shri Dessai, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that throughout the trial, the learned trial Court had issued an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the suit property and therefore the said order ought to continue during the pendency of the present appeal. On the other hand, Shri Lotlikar, the leaned Senior Counsel has submitted that this is a third round of litigation between the parties and therefore in the circumstances of the case, no injunction ought to be granted in favour of the plaintiffs. 6. I have perused the order dated 29/04/2003 and the judgment of the trial Court dated 30/05/2008. The learned trial Court has observed in para 61 of the judgment that; “One thing is required to be noted that this is the third round of litigation between the parties with regard to the same property, out of which, first started in the year 1959 by way of attachment on the basis of a bogus loan deed. The defendants and their ancestors successfully defended their right by raising objections against such attachment and in fact the said objections to the attachment of immovable property was considered as a separate suit and decided on merits. Second round started by filing Regular Civil Suit No.88/1971 and on that occasion also the defendants and their ancestors successfully defended their rights. The said suit filed by Ganesh S. Naik was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bicholim by making specific observations and thereby First Appeal filed against such judgment and decree bearing No.24/1983 was also dismissed on 9/09/1983. The said Ganesh Naik preferred Letters Patent Appeal No.1/1989 which was dismissed on 17/18th March 1993. 3 Now by way of present suit, the plaintiffs again raised the same aspect i.e. extent of northern boundary of the property Kungavoril borod and therefore, it is obvious that the plaintiffs and their ancestors are desperately trying to grab the property known as Kunang or part of it from the defendants by any way from 1959.” 7. A perusal of order dated 29/04/2003 of the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, shows that another order was made on 8/04/2002 restraining defendants nos. 1 to 18 and 32 to 35 by way of temporary injunction from cutting any coconut trees or any other trees existing in Survey No.14/2 (part) or digging therein in any manner pending the disposal of the suit. From the said order it also can be seen that the Court contemplated directing defendants to maintain status quo by not cutting the trees from the suit property as well as from Survey No.14/2 (part) as well as digging therein as per order dated 8/04/2002 and consequently the defendant no.43 was required to be restrained from issuing a licence to the defendants from cutting and felling the trees, though the final order shows that defendants no. 1 to 18 were restrained from interfering in the suit property in whatsoever manner and/or cutting or felling of trees, etc. 8. The learned trial Court has come to the conclusion that prayers made in the earlier suit namely RCS No.88/1971, were the same as the present suit and therefore the suit is barred by res judicata. The learned trial Court has also declared that the defendants are entitled for a 4 declaration claimed by them in the counter claim that they are the co- owners of Survey No.14/3, which according to the plaintiffs is part of the suit property claimed by them as Kungavoril Borod. 9. That being the position, in my view, the only order which could be reasonably passed at present in their favour is to direct the defendants not to cut any trees from suit property or carry any digging, as claimed by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs cannot be given any further relief as sought by them. Consequently, the application is disposed of on the above terms. N.A. BRITTO, J. NH/-