The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Article 1565 of the Portuguese Civil Code in a property dispute and the relevance of the documents produced under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC.

1. Rule made returnable forthwith. The learned Counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 waives service. None appears for respondent no. 3, though served. Heard finally by consent of the parties.

2. The challenge in this petition is to the judgment and order dated 27.04.2015 passed by the learned District Judge at Panaji in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 5/2015. By the impugned judgment, the learned District Judge has dismissed the appeal, thereby confirming the order of injunction passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Ponda on 31.12.2014 in Regular Civil Suit No. 26/2014/A. The petitioners are also challenging an order dated 27.04.2015, by which application (Exhibit-9) filed by the respondents for production of documents has been allowed by the learned District Judge.

3. The brief facts are that the respondent nos. 1 and 2 have filed the aforesaid suit against the petitioners (original defendant nos. 1 and 2) and the respondent no. 3-Laxmi Gaonkar (original defendant no. 3) for declaration, permanent injunction and other consequential reliefs. The parties are hereinafter referred to in their original capacity for the sake of convenience.

4. The plaintiffs are seeking declaration that the sale deed dated 05.03.2013 executed by their mother (respondent no. 3) and the deceased father of the petitioners, in favour of defendant no.1, is null and void and for cancellation of the same. The plaintiffs are also seeking injunction restraining the defendants from changing the survey records of the suit plot or effecting any construction or transferring the same in any manner.

5. The plaintiffs filed an application for temporary injunction, which was opposed by the defendants inter-alia on the ground that the suit property was sold by the deceased father along with their mother (defendant no.3) in favour of defendant no.1 and it is in his possession.

6. The learned Trial Court by order dated 31.12.2014 allowed the application restraining the petitioners or anybody on their behalf from changing the survey records of the suit plot or from effecting any construction or transferring, selling or alienating the same in any manner. This was challenged by the petitioners before the learned District Judge in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 5/2015. It appears that during the pendency of the said appeal, the respondent nos. 1 and 2 filed an application under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC for production of documents. The learned District Judge has allowed the said application, permitting the production of the following documents:

(1) Copy of No Objection certificate issued by V.P. Vetqui-Candola for release of water supply connection to the shed for commercial use under Ref. No. VP/BC/2002-03/784 dated 20.09.2002.

(2) Copy of No Objection certificate under Ref. No. VP/BC/2013-14/1150 issued by Village Panchayat to start the fabrication workshop in premises House No. 264 to Harish R. Gaonkar.

(3) Copy of complaint by Harish Ramakant Gaonkar dated 29.06.2013.

(4) Copy of objection for Mutation filed with Joint Mamlatdar-III dated 05.12.2014.

(5) Copy of objection addressed to Sarpanch V.P. Khandola-Marcela dated 31.01.2014.

7. The learned District Judge has dismissed the appeal, which brings the petitioners to this Court.

8. I have heard Shri Bhobe, the learned Counsel for the petitioners and Shri Palekar, the learned Counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 2. None appears for respondent no. 3.

9. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that no case was made out to entertain the application (Exhibit-9) under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC. It is submitted that the Appellate Court erred in making out a case for respondent nos. 1 and 2, while allowing the said application. It is contended that although, the application (Exhibit-9) is dated 04.02.2015, the same is filed on 24.03.2015 after the petitioners had concluded their arguments on 12.03.2015. It is contended that the Appellate Court ought to have granted opportunity to the petitioners to deal