JUDGMENT

M S Sonak, J. - Heard Mr. A. D. Bhobe for the appellants and Mr. H. D. Naik for the respondent no.1. Mr Bhobe points out that respondents no.2 and 3 have been served and in any case, at least for the purpose of this appeal they are not the contesting respondents.

2. Accordingly, this appeal is admitted and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties the appeal is taken up for disposal forthwith.

3. The challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 08.03.2021 made by the learned District Judge, South Goa restraining the appellants from dispossessing the respondent no.1 of his business otherwise than by due process of law.

4. Ordinarily, there might have been no scope to interfere against the impugned order because, the direction in the impugned order is merely that the appellants should not dispossess respondent no.1 of his business otherwise than by due process of law. However, if the plaint and the relief clause in the plaint are perused then, the plaintiff's (respondent no.1) relief was that the notice dated 03.04.2017 for recovery of certain amounts to be declared as unenforceable and further, for a permanent injunction to restrain the petitioner herein from ta