Heard Shri J. E. Coelho Pereira, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioners and Shri R. G. Ramani, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents.

2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel. Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent waives service.

3. The above Petition challenge the Orders passed by the Courts below whereby an application for temporary injunction filed by the Petitioners came to be dismissed.

4. Briefly, the facts of the case as contended by the Petitioners are that they are owners in possession of a property known as "Pandavwada" bearing survey no. 57/10 of the Village of Orgao, admeasuring 6125 square metres, which according to the Petitioners, is in their enjoyment and possession. It is further their case that on 19.02.2012, the Respondent and his attorney Shri Datta S. Naik, trespassed into the house existing in the said property by breaking open the lock of the door of the suit house and removed totally the Mangalore tiles of the roof and the wooden beams and rafters of the suit house. It is further their case that the Respondents started digging pit hole inside the suit house in order to put up a RCC foundation and erect RCC pillar. The Petitioners further alleged that on 20.02.2012, the Petitioners lodged a complaint before the local Police Station for the forceful trespass and in the inquiry therein, they learnt that the Respondents had obtained an N.O.C. from the local Panchayat and the Town and Country Planning Department. It is further the case of the Petitioners that they accordingly filed a suit on 22.02.2012 praying, inter alia, for an injunction restraining the Respondents, his legal representatives, etc., from in any manner interfering in the peaceful possession of the Petitioners and for damages and mandatory injunction. Alongwith the suit, the Petitioners also filed an application for temporary injunction praying inter alia to restrain the Respondents from interfering with the peaceful possession of the property belonging to the Petitioners. It is further their case that they have also asked for temporary injunction to restrain the Respondents from carrying out any construction in the suit property.

5. On being served, the Respondents filed their appearance and filed their written statements and reply to the application for temporary injunction. It is the contention of the Respondents that they are the mundkars of the suit house. It is further their case that in the other rights column of the duly promulgated Survey Records, the house is shown to be belonging to the father of the Respondent Ramnath Vaman Naik. The Petitioners sought for an exparte Order of injunction before the learned Trial Judge and, as no Order was passed, the Petitioners preferred an Appeal before the Lower Appellate Court. The Lower Appellate Court directed the parties to maintain status quo. The said Order was challenged before this Court in a Writ Petition no. 247/2012 and by Order dated 29.03.2012, this Court directed the learned Trial Judge to dispose of the application for temporary injunction as expeditiously as possible on merits. Accordingly, the learned Trial Judge after hearing the parties, dismissed the application for temporary injunction. Being aggrieved by the said Order, the Petitioners preferred an Appeal before the Lower Appellate Court which also came to be rejected by Judgment dated 29.308.2012.

6. Being aggrieved by the Judgments passed by the Courts below dismissing the application for temporary injunction, the Petitioners have preferred the above Petition.

7. Shri J. E. Coelho Pereira, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, has assailed the impugned Order essentially on the ground that it is not in dispute that the Petitioners are the owners in possession of the suit property. Learned Senior Counsel further contended that the Respondent is a licensee of the premises and, according to him, he has no right to occupy the suit premises. Learned