Case: Dr. Michelle N. Pinto Souza (Deceased) Through Her Legal Heir &amp; Another Vs. Marieta Teresa Petronila De Fatima Mascarenhas E. Pinto &amp; Others

1. Issue notice to the respondents. Learned counsel for the respondents has entered appearance and accepted the notice.2. Leave granted.3. With the consent of the parties, we have heard the appeal finally.4. This appeal is filed by the plaintiffs against the interim order dated 07.06.2017 passed by the High Court of Bombay at Goa in a pending Appeal from Order No. 63 of 2016 filed by the plaintiffs against the order dated 17.09.2016 passed by Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mapusa in pending Civil Suit No. 63/2014/A.5. Today this Court dismissed one connected SLP filed by the plaintiffs being SLP (C) No. 9627 of 2017 which also arose out of the same civil suit, i.e., Civil Suit No. 63/2014/A out of which this appeal arises. In other words, the SLP and this civil appeal arise out of same one civil suit.6. The said SLP arose out of one interlocutory order dated 03.06.2016 passed in the civil suit regarding grant of temporary injunction prayed by the plaintiffs (appellants herein) against the defendants (respondents herein) in relation to suit properties vide their application dated 29.11.2014.7. The Trial Court had granted the temporary injunction in relation to the suit properties. However, in an Appeal filed by the defendants before the High Court (Appeal from Order No. 51/2016), the High Court vide order 17.02.2017, set aside the order of the Trial Court dated 03.06.2016 and dismissed the plaintiffs application for grant of injunction.8. The plaintiff then filed the aforesaid SLP before this Court against the order of the High Court dated 17.02.2017 which, as mentioned above, was dismissed by this Court today. As a result of the dismissal of SLP, the plaintiffs application for grant of injunction was dismissed.9. So far as this appeal is concerned, it arose out of another interlocutory order passed by the Trial Court on 17.09.2016 in the same suit at the instance of defendants on their application dated 24.02.2015 in which the defendants had prayed a direction against the plaintiffs directing them to deposit a sum of L 42,00,000/-. The trial court allowed this application filed by the defendants vide their order dated 17.09.2016 and directed the plaintiffs to deposit a sum of L 42,00, 000/- in the Court for being invested in FDR.10. The plaintiffs filed an appeal (order 63/2016) before the High Court against the order dated 17.09.2016. It is in this appeal, the High Court passed the impugned interim order dated 07.06.2017 giving directions to the plaintiffs to deposit the money in terms of order dated 17.09.2016 which gave rise to filing of this appeal by the plaintiff before this court questioning the legality of the order dated 07.06.2017.11. In our view, since we have dismissed the SLP filed by the plaintiffs today arising out of injunction matter which has resulted in dismissal of injunction application of the plaintiffs, the order dated 17.09.2016 which was essentially passed by the Trial Court against the plaintiffs due to grant of injunction by the Trial Court deserves to be set aside. In other words, since the plaintiffs application for grant of injunction has been dismissed, a fortorari, the order dated 17.09.2016 passed by the Trial Court against the plaintiffs at the instance of the defendants on their application dated 24.02.2015 also can not sustain and has to be set aside.12. Indeed, learned counsel for the respondents fairly admitted this legal position arising in the case and rightly stated that he does not, therefore, press defendants application dated 24.02.2015.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]11. In our view, since we have dismissed the SLP filed by the plaintiffs today arising out of injunction matter which has resulted in dismissal of injunction application of the plaintiffs, the order dated 17.09.2016 which was essentially passed by the Trial Court against the plaintiffs due to grant of injunction by the Trial Court deserves to be set aside. In other words, since the plaintiffs application for grant of injunction has been dismissed, a fortorari, the order dated 17.09.2016 passed by the Trial Court against the plaintiffs at the instance of the defendants on their application dated 24.02.2015 also can not sustain and has to be set aside.12. Indeed, learned counsel for the respondents fairly admitted this legal position arising in the case and rightly stated that he does not, therefore, press defendants application dated 24.02.2015.