AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
G. A. Sanap, J
Heard the learned Advocate for the petitioners and the learned Advocate for the respondents.
The learned Advocate for the petitioners submit that after the order dated 5 April 2022 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, South Goa at Margao, whereby the revision application filed by the respondent herein was allowed and the order passed by the learned Magistrate dated 21 May 2018 came to be set aside. The learned Advocate for the petitioners submit that after this order dated 5 April 2022, the respondents have started obstructing the use of way by the petitioners. The learned Advocate submits that in view of this position, the order of status quo may be granted.
As against this, the learned Advocate appearing for the respondents submit that the reasoned order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 5 April 2022 dealt with facts and applicable law. The learned Advocate submits that during the pendency of the revision application filed by the respondents, there was a stay to the order dated 21 May 2018 passed by the learned Magistrate. The learned Advocate therefore submits that the prayer for status quo in the light of the above stated facts, is misconceived.
After hearing the arguments, I am of the view that the order of status quo prayed for, would not be in the interest of the parties. Similarly, in the light of the facts noted above, the said order would not serve the purpose of the petitioners. If it is the case of the petitioners that after order dated 5 April 2022, the respondents have started obstructing the right of way, in my view, it would be within the rights of the petitioners to approach the Executive Magistrate. If the Executive Magistrate finds that there is a obstruction, then he may treat it as a fresh cause of action and based on the fresh cause of action, he may proceed further. At this stage therefore, the prayer for status quo stands rejected.
After the above order, the learned Advocate for the petitioners submit that in view of the liberty granted by this Court to the petitioners to approach the Executive Magistrate based on the fresh cause of action, the petition may be disposed of.
In view of above statement, the petition stands disposed of. The miscellaneous application also stands disposed of.