1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 690 OF 2008. 1. Shri Jaganath Sonu Khandolkar, S/o late Shri Sonu Khandolkar, aged about 57 years, Married, Businessman; 2. Mrs. Sudha Jaganath Khandolkar, W/o. Jaganath Khandolkar, aged about 45 years, Married housewife, 3. Mr. Datta Sonu Khandolkar, S/o late Shri Sonu Khandolkar, aged about 52 years, Married, Agriculturist; 4. Mrs. Magan Datta Khandolkar, W/o Datta Khandolkar, aged about 42 years, Married, housewife; All the above, r/o. H.No.92, Tamsulewda, Khandola, Marcela, Ponda-Goa. .. Petitioners. Versus 1. Shri Esso Raghu Khanolkar, S/o Raghu Khandolkar, aged about 60 years, Married, Businessman. 2. Mrs. Vatsala Esso Khandolkar W/o Esso Khandolkar, aged about 52 years, Married, housewife Both r/o Bag Khandola Marcela, Ponda-Goa. OR. Bandar, Kalapur,Tiswadi-Goa .. Respondents 2 Mr. V. A. Lawande, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. S. Mahambray, Advocate for the respondents. Coram :- A. P. LAVANDE, J. Date :- 17 th November, 2008. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Lawande, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Mahambray, learned Counsel for the respondents. 2. Rule. By consent, heard forthwith. 3. By this petition, the petitioners challenge the order dated 30.08.2008 passed by the District Judge-3, North Goa, Panaji in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No.49/2008 dismissing the appeal against the order dated 15/03/2008 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division,Ponda in Regular Civil Suit No.57/2007/C dismissing the application filed by the petitioners/ plaintiffs for temporary injunction before the Trial Court. 4. Although several grounds have been urged in the petition, the petition is liable to be allowed on a very short ground. Mr. Lawande, learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the 3 application of injunction filed by the petitioners, was heard by the learned Judge Ms. Prabhudessai, who had granted status-quo. Thereafter, the suit was transferred to the Court presided by learned Judge Mr. Carlos S. Da Silva, who decided the matter on the basis of written arguments filed. According to Mr. Lawande, serious prejudice has been caused to the petitioners since the Trial Court passed the impugned order without hearing the oral arguments on behalf of the petitioners /plaintiffs. This point was specifically taken in the memo of the appeal as well as in the written argument filed before the Lower Appellate Court. The record discloses that this point has not been adverted to by the learned Appellate Court. 5. When an application for temporary injunction is filed, the party seeking injunction, is entitled to address the Court oral arguments unless the party waives his right to address oral argument and leaves the matter to the Court to be decided on the basis of written arguments. In the present case, as stated above, the record discloses that the matter was initially argued before one Judge and thereafter the suit was transferred to another Judge, who decided the matter on the basis of the written arguments. The petitioners claimed that they have been seriously prejudiced on account of the fact that they were not heard by the Trial Court before passing the impugned order. 4 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that both the impugned orders are liable to be quashed and set aside on the sole ground that Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ponda before whom Special Civil Suit No.57/2007/C is pending, did not pass order after giving an opportunity to the petitioners to address oral arguments. The learned Judge shall hear oral arguments of both the parties and decide the application for temporary injunction filed by the petitioners on its own merit without being influenced the impugned orders. Accordingly, both the impugned orders are quashed and set aside. Needless to mention that I have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the rival claims and the Trial Court shall decide the application on the basis of the material placed by both sides on its own merit. The Trial Court shall decide the application within 30 days of the date of the receipt of the order. Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms. A. P. LAVANDE, J. SMA