1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO.111 OF 2010 1. Shri Gajendra Purushottam Kalangutkar, 2. Smt. Shubhada Gajendra Kalangutkar, both major of age, both Indian Nationals, Land owners, residents of “Seema Niwas”, Wadacha Wadda, Bordem, Taluka, Bicholim, Goa. …. Petitioners V e r s u s 1. Shri Anand Lingappa Murgodi, 2. Smt. Rajashree Anand Murgodi, major in age, both Indian Nationals both residents of Bordem, Bicholim-Goa. 3. Smt. Archana P, Herekar (widow), major of age, Indian National, resident of Naik Nagar, Bordem, Bicholim-Goa. …. Respondents. Mr. S.D. Lotliakr, Senior Advocate with Mr. P. Lotlikar, advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. V.A. Lawande, advocate for respondents nos.1,2 and 2 3. Coram: A. P. Lavande, J. Date: 9th February, 2011. JUDGMENT: Heard Mr. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Lawande, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Rule. By consent, heard forthwith. 3. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioners challenge the judgment and order dated 21/12/2009 passed by the Adhoc District Judge-I, Fast Track Court, Panaji, passed in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal no.93 of 2007 dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioners against the order dated 12/9/2007 of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bicholim in Special Civil Suit no.23/2007/A, whereby applications for temporary injunction filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs 3 were dismissed. 4. In support of the petition, several contentions have been raised including the contention that several grounds urged and argued before the lower Appellate Court have not been considered. 5. Mr. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel placing reliance upon the judgment in the case of Shri Pradeep K.R. Sangodker, Goa Vs. State of Goa and anr. 2006 (2) Goa L.R. 343, submitted that the impugned judgment and order has been passed in clear breach of the said order in as much as the lower Appellate Court has disposed of the matter after more than three months after the conclusion of the arguments. According to Mr. Lotlikar, the arguments before the lower Appellate Court were heard on 7/11/2007 and the written arguments on behalf of the appellants were filed on 20/12/2007 . Thereafter, the matter was adjourned 4 on several occasions and on 15/9/2008 written arguments on behalf of the respondents were filed. On 26/3/2009 oral arguments on behalf of the respondents were advanced and the matter was kept for clarification, if any. However, no clarification was sought from either counsel appearing for the plaintiffs or the defendants and ultimately on 21/12/2007 the lower Appellate Court passed the impugned order dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs. 6. Mr. Lawande, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents fairly did not dispute the factual details as submitted by Mr. Lotlikar. 7. In view of the above, it is evident that the impugned judgment and order is passed in clear breach of the directions given in the case of Pradeep Sangodker (supra). Moreover, Mr. Lotlikar, submitted that several 5 contentions of the petitioners herein were not considered by the lower Appellate Court while disposing of the appeal. 8. In view of the above, the impugned judgment and order dated 21/12/2009 passed by the lower Appellate Court is quashed and set aside and the lower Appellate Court is directed to dispose of the appeal in accordance with law and more particularly following the directions given in the case of Pradeep Sangodker (supra). 9. It is made clear that I have not expressed any opinion on merits of the rival claims and all the rival contention are kept open. 10. The parties to appear before the lower Appellate Court on 1st March, 2011 at 10.00 a.m. The lower Appellate Court shall dispose of Miscellaneous 6 Civil Application no.93 of 2007 expeditiously and in case before 30/3/2011. 11. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. A. P. Lavande, J. Ap/-