The High Court's jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is limited and should be exercised sparingly and only in appropriate cases where the judicial conscience of the High Court dictates it to act lest a gross failure of justice or grave injustice should occasion.

JUDGMENT :

1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 27th March, 2003 passed by the High Court of Bombay at Goa in Writ Petition Nos. 326-327 of 2002 whereby an order passed by the Additional District Judge, Panaji in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 61 of 1998 allowing an appeal from an order of the trial Court in suit No. 63/97/B refusing to pass an order of interim injunction was set aside.

3. Having regard to the order proposed to be passed by us, it is not necessary to delve deep into the factual matrix. Suffice it to state that the respondents herein filed a suit for injunction against the appellant claiming, inter alia, the following reliefs :

"(a) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased, by way of permanent injunction, to restrain the defendants including their family members, agents, serv-ants and labourers from raising any structure or construction in place of the demolished suit premises and from constructing anything above the ground floor of the structure;

(b) For a mandatory injunction, directing the defendants to place zinc sheets above the ground floor with the existing ground floor walls as the support in order to prevent the monsoon waters from affecting the ground floor premises of the plaintiff."

4. Admittedly, the appellants are tenants in respect of the premises in suit. A lease in respect of the said suit premises was created in favour of the predecessor of the appellant No. 1 in terms of a deed dated 25th January, 1964 which was subsequently transferred to appellant No. 1 herein in the year 1975. It is also not in dispute that the plaintiff-respondents have l/12th share in the suit premises. One Soiru Camotim Mhamai said to be the karta of the joint family, on a representation made by the appellant No. 1 granted a no objection certificate for carrying out the acts by him and as specified in the letter dated 1st April, 1996 which are as under :

"1. To start any other type of businesses suitable and profitable to you in addition to the present business of Hotel/Restaurant, including Bar for retail sale of liquor for consumption within the premises, either in partnership or as a private limited company with any persons of your choice.

2. To carry out different types of businesses in the said premises we have no objection in allowing you to apply for various licences required for the same from various Government Departments, Municipality, Commissioner for Excise, P.W.D. etc. as the case may be.

3. To carry out in the said premises/various types of repairs, construction and renovation/furnishing works of roof, ceilings, walls, flooring, toilets, pavements, canopies, rolling shutters etc. required for profitable business and without disturbing the other tenants and without changing present name of the firm.

4. To apply and take various connections in the said premises viz. Electricity, Water, Sewage, Telephone, Fax etc."

5. Pursuant to or in furtherance of the said no objection granted by the alleged karta of the family, (which fact is denied and disputed by the respondent), the appellant No. 1 herein obtained license from the municipal authorities for carrying out repairs. Acting pursuant to and in furtherance of the said license the appellant herein is said to have demolished a part of the suit premises.

6. The aforementioned suit for injunction was filed by the respondents at that stage. The learned trial Court passed an interim order of injunction in favour of the respondent, whereagainst an appeal was preferred by the appellant. The said appeal, as noticed hereinbefore, was allowed. The respondent moved the High Court questioning the correctness of the said order purported to be under Article 227 of the Constitution of India which has been allowed by the impugned judgment.

7. Mr. Mehta the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants contends that having regard to the fact that in terms of the amendment made to Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code the High Court could n