IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 15 OF 2012

M/S. DOLPHIN ADVENTURE SPORTS

LIMITED REP. BY MANAGING DIRECTOR

MR. MALCOLM COELHO AND 7 ORS.,

... Appellants

Versus

MR. DIAGO BARBOSA AND 5 ORS.,

... Respondents

Mr. Shivan Desai, Advocate for the appellants.

Coram:- F. M. REIS, J.

Date:-

30th March, 2012

P.C.

Heard Shri Shivan Desai, learned Counsel appearing for the

appellants.

2. The above appeal challenges the order dated 31.03.2011

whereby an application for temporary injunction filed by the

appellants came to be dismissed. From the records as well as the

submissions of the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants, it

transpired that an earlier suit being Special Civil Suit No. 14/2000/A

came to be filed by the appellants herein against the respondent nos.

2 to 6 for specific performance of the agreement dated 20.10.1992

along with other reliefs as sought therein. It is also not in dispute that

the respondent nos. 5 and 6 have also filed a Regular Civil Suit No.

406/2000/C against the appellants herein contending inter-alia that

they are not the parties to the suit agreement and they are entitled for

permanent injunction and other reliefs. Further, the suit is also stated

to be pending for adjudication.

3. It is further the contention of the appellants that somewhere

in January, 2006, the respondent no.1 came to the suit property in the

company of the respondent no.7 and informed the appellant no.2 that

the respondent no.1 wanted to purchase the suit property as he had

advanced a loan to the respondent no.3 and that the appellant no.2

informed the respondent nos. 1 and 7 that the suit property had

already been agreed to be purchased by him and that the said suit for

specific performance was pending.

4. It is further their case that on 13.08.2006, the appellant no.2

got published a public notice in the local dailies with regard to the

pendency of the said suit. It is further their case that thereafter they

learnt about the execution of the sale deed dated 27.03.2006 in favour

of the respondent no.1 selling the suit property to the said respondent

no.1 on the basis of the allotment made in the Inventory Proceedings

No. 9/2000/B. The suit came to be filed to declare the order passed

in the Inventory Proceedings as null and void as according to the

appellants, the same has been obtained by fraud and collusion.

Consequently, the sale deed executed in favour of the respondent

no.1 has also been challenged.

5. The respondents have resisted the claim put forward by the

appellants. The learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Panaji, upon

appreciating the evidence on record and considering the material

adduced by the parties dismissed the application for temporary

injunction filed by the appellants.

6. Shri Desai, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants has

assailed the impugned order essentially on the ground that in the

earlier suit filed by the appellants, there is already an injunction order

operating against the respondent nos. 4 and 5 and as such, the

execution of the sale deed itself according to him was in breach of the

said injunction order. The learned Counsel further pointed out that

the allotment made in the Inventory Proceedings is fraudulent as the

whole exercise was carried out only to defeat the claim of the

appellants over the suit property. The learned Counsel further

pointed out that in the suit filed by the appellants there is an

injunction order operating against the respondent nos. 5 and 6 from

alienating the suit property and also from interfering with the

possession of the appellants with regard to the suit property. The

learned counsel as such submits that when such injunction order was

operating, it was in the interest of justice that the learned Trial Judge

ought to have granted the injunction against the respondent no.1

herein.

7. I have carefully considered the contenti