IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 43 OF 2011 MR. SELWYN AGNELO BOTHELHO AND ANR., ... Appellants Versus M/S. JAI BHAVAN BUILDERS PVT. LTD., BY ITS DIRECTOR MR. RAJESH SHET ... Respondent Mr. J. J. Mulgaonkar, Advocate for the appellants. Coram:- F. M. REIS, J. Date:- 19th October, 2011 P.C. Heard Shri J. J. Mulgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants. None for the respondent through served. 2. Notice was given in the above appeal for disposal of the appeal at the stage of admission. Though the respondent is duly served, none appeared on behalf of the respondent at the time of the hearing of the appeal. 3. The short controversy raised by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants while challenging the impugned order dated 09.02.2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Panaji, is that the learned Judge whilst granting the injunction in favour of the respondent has restrained the appellants, their agents, servants and representatives from selling, creating any charge in respect of any part of the suit property bearing survey No.291/1 of the Village of Carambolim, Tiswadi Taluka Goa. But however it is the contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants that the rights of the respondent is only restricted to the portions of the suit property which have been sold pursuant to three sale instances referred to at paras 7, 8 and 9 of the plaint. The learned Counsel pointed out that the property surveyed under No.291/1 extends much beyond the portions of the property which have been sold to the respondent pursuant to the sale deeds referred to at the said paras. The learned Counsel further pointed out that the ex-parte ad-interim order granted on the same terms came to be modified by the learned Judge by order dated 01.04.2009 whereby the ex-parte order dated 24.02.2009 passed on the application for temporary injunction was modified inasmuch as the same was limited only to an area of 2 lakhs square metres of survey no.291/1 of Village Carambolim, purchased by the respondent pursuant to the sale instances mentioned at paras 7, 8 and 9 of the plaint. The learned Counsel further pointed out that in fact in the reply filed to the said application there was specific averments made by the appellants to the effect that the appellants would not create any charge or alienate or interfere with the said portions of the suit property. The learned Counsel further submitted that the learned Judge failed to consider the said aspect whilst passing the impugned order and went to grant relief of temporary injunction as prayed for by the respondent without considering that the same extends to an area beyond the one purchased by the respondent. The learned Counsel as such submitted that the temporary injunction granted by the impugned order deserves to be modified accordingly. 4. On perusal of order passed by the learned Judge whilst modifying the ex-parte injunction granted earlier, the learned Judge has restricted the injunction only to the portions of the property which have been sold pursuant to the sale deeds referred to at paras 7, 8 and 9 of the plaint. The learned Judge whilst passing the impugned order has failed to consider that the property which is surveyed under No.291/1 includes not only the portions sold to the respondent but also an area beyond the said portions to which the respondent had no claim nor any prima facie title therein. As such, the learned Judge was not justified to grant a blanket temporary injunction restraining the appellants from interfering etc. over the whole suit property surveyed under No. 291/1. The learned Judge ought to have granted the temporary injunction only in respect of the portions purchased by the respondent referred to at paras 7, 8 and 9 of the plaint. To that extent, the impugned order deserves to be modified. 5. In view of the above, I pass the following : O R D E R (i) The appeal is partly allowed. (ii) The impugned order dated 09.02.2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Panaji is modified and the injunction granted therein is restricted only to the portions of the property purchased by the respondent pursuant to the sale deeds referred to at paras 7, 8 and 9 of the plaint. 6. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. F. M. REIS, J. at*