1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for respondent no.1 and learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent no.2.

2. The only point which arises for my determination is:-

Whether the impugned order is so illegal and perverse as to call for interference?

3. This revision application challenges order dated 3.3.2011 passed by Ad-hoc District Judge-2, North Goa, Panaji, rejecting the application of the petitioner filed under Order 7, Rule 11 of C.P.C.

4. Respondent no.1, being owner of the suit property bearing survey no. 23/1-B, is developing the property by constructing a residential complex. This property is land locked and has access only through one road situated on its western boundary. Road passes through plot of land belonging to the petitioner. It is the contention of respondent no.1 that this road (hereinafter called as suit road) providing access to the suit property is in existence even before the property through which it passes was acquired by the State Government for the development of the industry in the State of Goa. Before obtaining necessary licence for construction, predecessor in title of respondent no.1 had obtained NO