By this appeal, the appellants/defendants have challenged Judgment and decree dated 21.3.2000 passed by the Additional District Judge-II, North Goa, Panaji, in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No.142 of 1999 setting aside the order dated 14.10.1999 passed by the Civil Judge Senior Division, Mapusa allowing an application under Section 144 of Civil Procedure Code filed by the appellants/defendants.

2. Briefly, the facts relating to filing of the present appeal are as under:

The respondents filed Civil Suit no.51/1978 in the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division, Mapusa seeking permanent injunction in respect of the suit shop situated in Mascarenhas building near Municipal garden Mapusa, against the original appellant no.1 Datta Raghoba Sawant and appellant no. 2. In the suit, the respondents claimed that they were in possession of the suit shop and the appellants had trespassed in the said shop. Along with the suit, an application for temporary injunction was filed. The learned trial Judge granted ex parte injunction restraining the defendants from entering the suit shop and from interfering in any manner and from obstructing the plaintiffs from their enjoyment of the suit shop. On the same date, the plaintiffs/respondents sought police protection which was granted. The appellants contested the suit. Against the order of injunction, the appellants/defendants preferred Miscellaneous Civil Appeal no.41/1978 before the Judicial Commissioner's Court at Panaji. The Judicial Commissioner's Court by order dated 12.10.1978 directed that out of the two rooms of the suit shop, the respondents would operate their business in the front room and the defendants would operate their business in the rear room with right to access to the said room. The said arrangement was to continue till the disposal of the appeal. By order dated 13.3.1979, Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 41/1978 was disposed of by maintaining the earlier order, till dismissal of the suit. Thereafter, on 3.3.1996 the defendants filed an application for amendment of the written statement and also sought a prayer seeking direction against plaintiff to put the defendants in possession of the shop. The said application was dismissed. Both the parties led evidence. The learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mapusa, by Judgment and Decree dated 9.4.1987 , dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiffs had failed to prove that they were in possession of the suit shop on the date of filing of the suit. The learned trial Judge in paragraph 44 of the judgment held that the defendants were in possession of the suit shop on the date of filing of the suit and the plaintiffs under the garb of protecting their possession with the aid of the order of the Court used ex parte injunction to dispossess the defendants from the suit shop. Consequently, the trial Judge dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs simplicitor for injunction. Regular Civil Appeal No.18/87 preferred to the District Court was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Mapusa, by judgment and order dated 27.11.1995. In paragraph 8 of the judgment, the Appellate Court observed that PW.1 Ashok T.Naik Salgaonkar (plaintiff no.1) had admitted in cross examination that they had thrown the defendant no.1 out of the suit premises after obtaining injunction from the Court and after taking police assistance. The Appellate Court held that the plaintiffs were dispossessed from the suit shop by obtaining ex parte injunction from the Court. Thereafter, Second Appeal preferred by the respondents was dismissed by order dated 15.3.1996 holding that no substantial question of law was involved.

3. On 19.9.1996 the appellants filed an application under Section 144 and/or Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code for restitution seeking eviction of the plaintiffs from the front room of the suit premises. The said application was contested by the respondents herein. The learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mapusa by order dated 14.10.19