Judgment : 1. Heard. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent. 2. By this common judgment, Writ Petition No. 643/2013 and Writ Petition No. 658/2013 are being disposed of as both the writ petitions arise out of same order of temporary injunction passed on 20.02.2013 in Regular Civil Suit No. 16/2012/A by Civil Judge, Senior Division, Quepem, which was the subject matter of challenge before the Court of District Judge-2, Margao in two appeals being Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 27/2013 and Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 28/2013 between the same parties. The learned District Judge-2, South Goa, Margao by his two identical orders passed in both these appeals on 17.07.2013 allowed both the appeals quashing and setting aside the order of temporary injunction dated 20.02.2013 of the trial Court and substituting the same with his order of temporary injunction only against defendants no. 1 and 2, who are respondents no. 4 and 5 in Writ Petition No. 643/2013 and respondents no. 1 and 2 in Writ Petition No. 658/2013. These petitions are directed against the said orders of District Judge-2, South Goa, Margao. 3. It is seen from the order of the first appellate Court passed on 17.07.2013 in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 27/2013 and also another order of the same date passed in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 28/2013 that the learned District Judge has proceeded on a wrong premise that the petitioners, the plaintiffs before the trial Court, had sought temporary injunction in respect of illegal construction being carried out by defendants no. 3 and 4, who are respondents no. 1 and 2 in Writ Petition No. 643 of 2013 and respondents no. 3 and 4 in Writ Petition No. 658 of 2013. It is further seen that the learned District Judge, after having assumed wrongly so, went on to quash and set aside the order of temporary injunction dated 20.02.2013 passed by trial Court. 4. It is further seen that it was never the case of the plaintiffs that these defendants i.e. defendants no. 3 and 4 have carried out any illegal construction at the suit plot. It has been their case that these defendants have been trying to create in an illegal manner one access road in the suit plot which is plot no. 13, so as to access the main road, a highway. 5. 3 and 4 have carried out any illegal construction at the suit plot. It has been their case that these defendants have been trying to create in an illegal manner one access road in the suit plot which is plot no. 13, so as to access the main road, a highway. 5. With such case of the plaintiffs against these defendants, specific temporary injunction was sought by the plaintiffs to restrain these defendants from making or carrying out any works or any act of interference or indulging in any act of encroachment in the suit plot. It must be noted here that the case of the plaintiffs as against defendants no. 1, 2 and 5, was different from their case against defendants no. 3 and 4, in the sense that allegation of illegal construction was specifically made against them. After having found that relief of temporary injunction could be granted, the trial Court by it’s order dated 20.02.2013, granted in favour of the plaintiffs a general relief of temporary injunction restraining all the defendants i.e. defendants no. 1 to 5, from making any encroachment of whatsoever nature in the suit-land and surrounding areas. 6. However, these facts, it appears, have not been correctly appreciated by the learned District Judge. The learned District Judge, as stated earlier, wrongly assumed that temporary injunction sought against defendants no. 3 and 4 was regarding stoppage of construction and, therefore, in paragraph 28 of the impugned judgment observed that as there were no allegations of any illegal construction against these defendants, the trial Court ought not to have passed any order against them. The observation of absence of allegations of illegal construction against defendants no. 3 and 4 was correct but that could not have been the ground for setting aside the order of the trial Court. The learned District Judge ought to have considered the entire material produced on record by the plaintiff’s before vacating temporary injunction order against the defendants no. 3 and 4 and it appears has not considered it in it’s entirety. 7. What has been considered by the learned District Judge is some part of the documentary evidence that these defendants do not have any other alternate access for making their way to the highway and back from it. But, while doing so, the learned District Judge has ignored material documentary evidence that was available. 7. What has been considered by the learned District Judge is some part of the documentary evidence that these defendants do not have any other alternate access for making their way to the highway and back from it. But, while doing so, the learned District Judge has ignored material documentary evidence that was available. It was in the nature of the Engineer's plan and the plan of the proposed sub-division attached to the partition deed dated 21.05.1968. Since this part of the documentary evidence, though material in nature, has been left out by the learned District Judge from consideration and also the fact that the learned District Judge wrongly assumed existence of some facts in the plan, I am of the view, the matter would have to be remanded for fresh consideration and disposal, in accordance with law. 8. There is one more reason for remanding the case. Temporary injunction granted against defendant no. 5, respondent no. 3 in Writ Petition No. 643/2013 and respondent no. 5 in Writ Petition No. 658/2013 has been vacated without any discussion of relevant material and without any cogent reasons. This would be reason enough to relegate the matter for consideration afresh. 9. In view of the above, the matter is remanded to the learned District Judge by quashing and setting aside of that part of impugned orders by which general temporary injunction granted by the trial Court on 20.02.2013 against defendants no. 1 to 5 has been vacated, for fresh consideration and disposal on the following aspects: (i) Consideration of the case of the plaintiffs regarding granting of temporary injunction as against defendant no. 5. (ii) Consideration of the case of the plaintiffs as against defendants no. 1 to 5 for granting of general temporary injunction against them so as to restrain them from making any act of interference or encroachment of whatsoever nature in the suit plot in terms of first prayer made by the plaintiffs in the application for granting of temporary injunction. 10. It is made clear that the case has not been remanded to the learned District Judge for fresh consideration on the issue of grant of temporary injunction regarding carrying out of further construction as against defendants no. 10. It is made clear that the case has not been remanded to the learned District Judge for fresh consideration on the issue of grant of temporary injunction regarding carrying out of further construction as against defendants no. 1 and 2, as it has been already granted by the learned District Judge and same being in accordance with law, has not been interfered with by this Court, in as much as no challenge to it has been made by defendants no. 1 and 2. 11. At this juncture, learned Counsel for defendants no. 3 and 4 has prayed that till final disposal of the appeal by the learned District Judge, the plaintiffs be directed not to make any construction in the nature of the compound wall so as to obstruct the access road in the suit-land to which these defendants are claiming right. This prayer has been strongly opposed by the learned Counsel for the plaintiffs. He states that there is a voluminous evidence available on record showing that these respondents have alternate access for going to and fro the highway and this fact has been confirmed by the trial Court. The learned Counsel for respondents no. 1 and 2 has submitted that said order of the trial Court has been reversed by the first appellate Court and that these defendants do not have alternate way. 12. Without making any observations on merits of the case, it would be appropriate to direct both parties to maintain status-quo and they are accordingly directed to maintain status-quo in the matter till the final disposal of the appeals by the first appellate Court. The status-quo order, it is made clear, has been passed only to give fair and equal chance to both sides to make out their respective cases before the first appellate Court and shall have no bearing on merits of the case. The learned District Judge is requested to dispose of the appeal expeditiously and in any case on or before 7th August, 2014. 13. Both the writ petitions are disposed of in terms of the directions given above. Rule is made absolute in these terms.