IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 541 OF 2007 SHRI. ROHIDAS DATTU FAL DESSAI AND 2 ORS., ... Petitioners Versus MRS. VISHRANTI DEVIDAS GAONKAR ... Respondent Ms. Susan Linhares, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. S. S. Kakodkar, Advocate for the Respondent. Coram:- N. A. BRITTO, J. Date:- 11th September, 2008 P.C.:- Petitioners are the Plaintiffs in R.C.S. No.78/2005/A and their application filed in the said Civil Suit for injunction has been dismissed by the learned trial Court and the said dismissal has been upheld by the learned Adhoc District Judge by Order dated 28-8-2007. Hence, the present petition on their behalf. There is no dispute that the Respondent had their house in survey No.81/2 which house has been depicted on a plan produced by the Respondent and which is at page 131 of the paper book and to which reference has been made by the learned trial Court. The Respondent purchased a plot of land admeasuring 22.5 sq. meters by sale deed dated 31-12-1993 from the Petitioners/Plaintiffs and also purchased another 150 sq. meters from Audi family by sale deed dated 7-2-2002. The said two plots have been depicted by letter B and plot X-5, on the said plan. The Plaintiffs have also purchased from Audi family a plot of land admeasuring 200 sq. meters by sale deed dated 27-9-1975. This plot is also depicted on the said plan. The construction sought to be done by the Respondents/Defendants is admittedly on the northern side of their existing house. The location of the plots purchased by the Plaintiffs and the Defendants and as depicted on the said plan does not appear to have been seriously contested at any time. The construction which the Defendants began on the northern side of their house is stated to have been completed and Mr. S. S. Kakodkar, learned Counsel on behalf of the Defendant submits that only finishing touches are to be given. Although the Plaintiffs claim to be the co-owners of the property their claim is in respect of specific plot purchased by them in the year 1975. Prima facie, they can have no grievance in case the Defendant proceeds with the construction which has now been completed. Needless to say any such construction would ultimately be subject to the result of the suit. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this is not a fit case to entertain the petition. Petition therefore is dismissed. Ex-parte orders, if any, shall stand vacated. N. A. BRITTO, J. RD.