Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, Heard finally by consent.

2. By this Writ Petition, the petitioner has challenged the legality and correctness of the orders, which are, the order dated 9-9-2015 passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 145/2015 passed by the first Additional Senior Civil Judge, Margao, thereby granting temporary mandatory injunction to the respondents and second, the order dated 1-12-2015 passed in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 60/2015 by District Judge-1, South Goa, Margao, thereby confirming the order granting temporary mandatory injunction.

3. The dispute between the petitioner and the respondents is a dispute between the landlord and the tenants in respect of right of way or access shown in the plan annexed to the plaint. It is the contention of the respondents-original plaintiffs that the access (hereinafter called the “suit access”) to their tenanted premises has been blocked by the petitioner by means of a gate erected by him and kept under locked condition.

4. According to the petitioner- original defendant, the respondents have an alternate access passing through another piece of land situated on the backside of the house and access as claimed