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 NOC from the petitioner for use of the suit road as an access for the suit property. Respondent no.1 contends that he has acquired an easement of necessity and also by grant in respect of the suit road. However, it was noticed by respondent no.1 that the petitioner commenced work of digging of trenches on the western boundary of the suit plot but in it's land in the last week of October, 2010 in order to construct masonary wall to enclose the boundary. At that time, it was assured that the suit road, which is 6 metres wide, providing access to the suit property, would be left open. However, later on with oblique motive and illegal intention, the petitioner dumped construction material on the suit road so as to block the access to the suit property.

5. Left with no option, Respondent no.1 filed a civil suit against the petitioner and respondent no. 2 seeking relief of declaration in respect of easement of necessity and easement by grant and also permanent injunction. Respondent no.1 also obtained leave of the Court under section 80 of the CPC for dispensing with the mandatory notice.

6. The suit was resisted by the petitioner. Preliminary objection as regards the maintainability of the suit was raised. It was also contended that the suit was liable to be rejected as it was barred under the law in view of non-compliance with the mandatory requirements of Section 52-A of the Goa Industrial Development Act, 1965( hereinafter called as “GID Act” for short). All the averments regarding the use of the suit road before acquisition of the property for the petitioner by the State Government and also easement of necessity and easement by grant were denied. It was submitted that the wall that was being constructed along the boundary towards western side of the suit property was on the property of the petitioner and was well within powers of the petitioner Goa Industrial Development Act, 1965(hereinafter called 'the GID Act”).

7. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner also filed an application under Order 7, Rule 11 (a) and (d) of the CPC which was later on prosecuted as an application under Rule 11(d) of the CPC only. It was submitted that Section 52A of the GID Act required giving of two months prior notice before institution of the suit and since the suit challenged the acts done by the petitioner in pursuance or in execution of the GID Act, compliance with the mandatory requirement of Section 52A was a necessity and as it was not done, the suit was barred by the law.

8. The application was resisted by respondent no.1 contending that when the Court dispensed with the notice under Section 80 of CPC, notice as contemplated under Section 52A was also impliedly waived by the Court. It was also stated that the obstruction of the suit access was done by the p