Judgment : 1. Heard Shri S. S. Kakodkar, the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants and Shri V. Menezes, the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents. 2. By the above Appeal, the Appellants are challenging the Order passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, South Goa, Margao, whereby an application for temporary injunction filed by the Respondents in Civil Suit no. 8 of 2008 was allowed and the Appellants were restrained, inter alia, from interfering with the suit property or undertaking any construction therein till the disposal of this suit. 3. Shri Kakodkar, the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants has essentially assailed the impugned Order on the ground that the Appellants are in possession of the suit portion of the property surveyed under chalta no. 169, P.T. Sheet no. 207 of Margao City. The learned Counsel has pointed out that the learned Judge has failed to address itself to the evidence adduced by the Appellants which conclusively establishes that the Appellants are in possession of the suit portion of the property. The learned Counsel further pointed out that the learned Judge has relied upon the Cadastral Plan which has not been promulgated and as such the inferences drawn on the basis of such plan cannot be sustained. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the learned Judge has erroneously appreciated the land registration document in respect of the property of the Appellants whilst passing the impugned Order and, as such, has erred in coming to the conclusion that the suit portion of the property belongs to the Respondents. The learned Counsel further pointed out that in the suit portion of the property surveyed under chalta no. 169, there are three coconut trees besides some fruit bearing trees and the Appellants would be deprived of the enjoyment of such trees in case the impugned Order is allowed to stand and the Respondents would have a free hand to change the nature of the property and create third party right which would be detrimental to the interest of the Appellants. The learned Counsel further submitted that the suit portion of the property is in ownership and possession of the Appellants and, as such, the impugned Order deserves to be quashed and set aside. 4. On the other hand, Shri Valmiki Menezes, the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents has supported the impugned Judgment. The learned Counsel further submitted that the suit portion of the property is in ownership and possession of the Appellants and, as such, the impugned Order deserves to be quashed and set aside. 4. On the other hand, Shri Valmiki Menezes, the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents has supported the impugned Judgment. The learned Counsel has pointed out that the suit portion of the property is part and parcel of the property belonging to the Respondents and the same stood in the City Survey in the name of their Predecessor in title and, as such, the learned Judge has rightly come to the conclusion that the suit portion of the property belongs to the Respondents. The learned Counsel has further taken me through the land registration document of the Respondents and pointed out that as per the said document, the northern boundary of the property is the property of the Appellants which conclusively establishes that the finding of the learned Judge are in accordance with the title documents of the parties. The learned Counsel has taken me through the impugned Order and pointed out that the claim of the Appellants is essentially on the basis of an Order obtained from the Revenue Authorities which disannexed the suit portion of the property without making the Respondent as parties which has been duly considered whilst passing the impugned Order. The learned Counsel further pointed out that the Appellants have failed to adduce any evidence to substantiate their claim of possession and, as such, the question of interfering in such discretionary Orders passed by the learned Judge would not arise. As far as the contention of the learned Counsel for the Appellants that the Respondents may create third party rights or change the nature of the property, the learned Counsel states that he would abide with any terms put by this Court whilst deciding the above Appeal. The learned Counsel further submitted that the Appeal deserves to be dismissed. 5. Having heard the learned Counsel and on perusal of the record, I find that the learned Judge has scrutinised every piece of evidence adduced by both the parties and has come to the conclusion that, prima facie, the Respondents have established their claim of title and possession of the suit portion and that the balance of convenience is in favour of the Respondents. The learned Judge has further found that the apprehension of the Respondents that the Appellants may put up any construction in the suit portion of the property was well found on the basis that an approval was sought by the Appellants to develop their remaining portion of the property. The learned Judge has further found prima facie on the basis of the material on record, that the Respondents were in possession of the suit portion of the property and that the Appellants have failed to establish that they were in possession of any portion of the suit property. On perusal of the impugned Order, I find that the said Order is a well reasoned order after considering all aspects of the matter. At Paras 18 and 19 of the impugned Order, the learned Judge has scrutinized the title documents of both the parties and has come to a prima facie conclusion in favour of the Respondents. No infirmity was pointed out by the learned Counsel for the Appellant in such findings. 6. The Apex Court in the Judgment reported in 1990 (Supp) S.C.C. 727in the case of Wander Ltd. & anr. vs. Antox India P. Ltd.,has held at Para 14 thus: “14. The appeals before the Division Bench were against the exercise of discretion by the Single Judge. In such appeals, the appellate court will not interfere with the exercise of discretion of the court of first instance and substitute its own discretion except where the discretion has been shown to have been exercised arbitrarily, or capriciously or perversely or where the court had ignored the settled principles of law regulating grant or refusal of interlocutory injunctions. An appeal against exercise of discretion is said to be an appeal on principle. Appellate court will not reassess the material and seek to reach a conclusion different from the one reached by the court below if the one reached by that court was reasonably possible on the material. The appellate court would normally not be justified in interfering with the exercise of discretion under appeal solely on the ground that if it had considered the matter at the trial stage it would have come to a contrary conclusion. The appellate court would normally not be justified in interfering with the exercise of discretion under appeal solely on the ground that if it had considered the matter at the trial stage it would have come to a contrary conclusion. If the discretion has been exercised by the trial court reasonably and in a judicial manner the fact that the appellate court would have taken a different view may not justify interference with the trial court's exercise of discretion. After referring to these principles Gajendragadkar , J. in Printers (Mysore) Private Ltd. v. PothanJoseph: (SCR 721) “... These principles are well established, but as has been observed by Viscount Simon in Charles Osenton & Co. v. Jhanaton‘...the law as to the reversal by a court of appeal of an order made by a judge below in the exercise of his discretion is well established, and any difficulty that arises is due only to the application of well settled principles in an individual case’.” The appellate judgment does not seem to defer to this principle.” 7. Considering the said Judgment of the Apex Court, as the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants was unable to point out any specific piece of evidence which has not been considered by the learned Judge whilst passing the impugned Order nor that any other documentary evidence has been misread by the learned Judge whilst passing the impugned Order, I find that no interference is called for by the Court at this stage in the impugned Order. It is further made clear that all the findings arrived at by the learned Judge in the impugned Order are, prima facie, which would not influence the Trial Court whilst deciding the suit on merits. But, however, in the facts and circumstances of the case, considering that the injunction also restrains the Appellants from interfering in the suit property, I find that in the interest of justice, the Respondents should be put to terms with regard to any dealings in the suit property during the pendency of the suit. The Respondents shall not create any third party right nor change the nature of the suit property nor cut the trees existing therein until the disposal of the suit filed by the Respondents. It is brought to my notice that the suit has already reached at an advanced stage and the evidence of the defendants is in progress. The Respondents shall not create any third party right nor change the nature of the suit property nor cut the trees existing therein until the disposal of the suit filed by the Respondents. It is brought to my notice that the suit has already reached at an advanced stage and the evidence of the defendants is in progress. Shri Kakodkar, the learned Counsel has prayed that the suit may be expedited. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and taking note of the fact that the evidence of the defendants is in progress, I find it appropriate that the learned Judge be directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible preferably on or before 31.01.2012. 8. In view of the above, subject to the terms stipulated herein above, I find that no case is made out for any interference in the impugned Order. Hence, the Appeal stands dismissed. The learned Judge is directed to dispose of the Civil Suit no. 8/2008 as expeditiously as possibly in any event preferably on or before 31.01.2012.