1 srk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORIDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION Appeal No.418 of 2000 With Notice of Motion No.2472 of 2000 In Suit No. 2244 of 1997 Kantilal Ukaji & ors. Appellants Vs. Dewanchand Ramsaran Industries Pvt.Ltd. And ors. Respondents Ms.Swapnali Bangur i/b. Vinod Mistry & Co. for appellants. Mr.Vachan Bodke i/b. Chitnis Vaithy & Co. for respondents. CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, JJ. January 29, 2010. P.C. 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 4th February 2000 in Notice of Motion No.2362 of 1997 in Suit No. 2244 of 1997 by which the prayer for temporary injunction as made by the plaintiffs came to be rejected. 2 2. The appellants – plaintiffs filed Suit No.2244 of 1997 for a declaration that they have a right of way through the plots belonging to the defendants and also for claiming permanent injunction restraining the defendants from preventing the plaintiffs from using their plots to approach the plot. Pending the trial of the suit, Notice of Motion was taken out for interim relief in terms of temporary injunction. 3. The learned trial Judge noted that after going through the recitals in both the sale deeds there is no clause providing for right of way to the plaintiffs through the plots of the defendants or that there was no obligation on the part of the defendants to give right of way over their plots to the plaintiffs. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that if the sale deeds are perused, the findings recorded would not stand. 4. On the issue of easementary right, the learned trial Judge noted that the same is required to be proved by leading evidence during the trial of the suit. The fact remains that for the last more than 13 years there is no injunction operating against the defendants at the instance of the plaintiffs in the pending suit. The findings recorded in the impugned order are prima 3 facie findings and the pending suit for the easementary rights as well as for permanent injunction will have to be considered on the basis of the evidence the parties may adduce during the trial of the suit. 5. Hence the appeal is dismissed and the trial of the suit is expedited. It is made clear that the findings recorded in the impugned order are only of prima facie nature. Parties to bear their own costs. 6. Notice of Motion No.2472 of 2000 does not survive and the same stands disposed. (SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI,J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE,J.)