THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.3732 OF 2011 ORDER: This revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 03-02-2011 in CMA No.24 of 2010 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Kurnool in setting aside the order, dated 05-07-2010 in I.A.No.52 of 2010 in O.S.No.22 of 2010 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Dhone, wherein the application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC to grant ad-interim injunction was dismissed. 2. The petitioners herein are the defendants and the respondents herein are the plaintiffs in the suit. 3. The respondents herein filed suit O.S.No.22 of 2010 seeking permanent injunction in respect of rastha marked as XX1 in the plaint plan. Along with the suit, they filed I.A.No.52 of 2010 for grant of ad- interim injunction restraining the defendants and their men, friends, relatives and agents etc., from obstructing the plaintiffs in using XX1 rastha for all purpose or interfere with their peaceful possession and enjoyment over XX! rastha or in any way meddling with the same. The trial Court after considering the material on record, dismissed the application. Challenging the same, the respondents herein filed CMA 24 of 2011 before the Principal District Judge, Kurnool. The learned District Judge, Kurnool vide impugned judgment, allowed the appeal granting temporary injunction in favour of the respondents herein. Aggrieved thereby, this revision is preferred by the petitioners. 4. The grant or refusal of a temporary injunction is covered by three principles viz., 1) if the plaintiff has made out a Prima facie case 2) if the balance of convenience is in his favour i.e., it would be greater inconvenience to the plaintiff if the injunction is not granted than the inconvenience which the defendant or person claiming through him would be put to if the temporary injunction is granted and 3) if the plaintiff suffers irreparable injury. 5. Plaintiffs’ case is based upon Ex.P2, which is the registered sale deed, dated 17-04-2003 executed by the brother of the 1st defendant. The recitals in Ex.P2 reads as under: 6. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners- defendants contended that there is another way for the plaintiffs to reach their land, which is on the Devarabanda road and therefore by granting injunction, the plaintiffs are using this rastha by allowing the tractors and carts and thereby causing damage to the crops of the revision petitioners and hence, he prays to allow the revision. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-plaintiffs contended that there is no other way to go to the lands of the plaintiffs and therefore, there is easement of necessity, that obstruction by the defendants to the plaintiffs to reach their land would cause irreparable loss to the plaintiffs, which cannot be estimated in terms of money, that the appellate Court rightly granted injunction and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 8. The suit was filed for injunction simplicitor. The dispute is with regard to using of existence of rastha, which was shown as XX1 in the Commissioner’s plan. Whether the rastha is in existence or not and whether the plaintiffs are using the said rastha to go to their lands have to be decided in the suit itself after adducing evidence by both parties. At this stage, no finding can be given which will have an impact on the trial of the suit with regard to existence of rastha. As seen from Ex.P2, it is clear that carts and men can go through the rastha, which is on eastern side bund of the defendants. So in pursuance of a recital in Ex.P2, a tentative arrangement can be made without expressing any opinion with regard to existence of disputed rastha only for use of carts of the plaintiffs and men to pass through XX1 without causing any damage to the crops in the land of the defendants. 9. According to learned counsel for the respondents-plaintiffs the dispute is only rastha to reach the land of the plaintiff, but it has to be adjudicated in the suit. Therefore, till the disposal of the suit, the disputed rastha can be used by the plaintiffs and their men for walking and carrying material through bullock carts and not by any other mode of transport. 10. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. Any observation or finding made in this order cannot be construed as a finding of this Court and un-influenced by any of the observations, the trial Court shall dispose of the suit preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order subject to other part heard and old cases. No costs. ________________ K.C. BHANU, J DATED: 28-10-2011 Hsd