ORDER :- The applicant filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with the suit land.

2. The respondents raised inter alia the plea that they were the tenants of the suit land. The land consisted of cashew, coconut, mango groves.

3. One of the issues was whether the respondents were tenants in respect of the cashew trees. The suit was proceeding its course when the Goa, Daman and Diu Protection of Rights of Tenants Cashewnut and Arecanut Gardens) Act, 1971, (hereinafter called "the Act") came into force. The respondents raised the plea that the suit had to be referred to the Mamlatdar under Section 4 (1) of the Act. The lower court considered this plea and after accepting it, made a reference to the Mamlatdar. It is this reference which is now impugned in this Revision Application.

4. The first objection as raised by Shri Verlekar is that this was not a case decided as the impugned order only refers the suit to the Mamlatdar. Shri Verlekar argues that in case the Mamlatdar comes to the conclusion that the respondents are not tenants, the Mamlatdar would have to refer the suit back to the trial Court. This contention is fully met by Shri Usgaonka

Click Here to Read the rest of this document