IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 468 of 2010 Reserved on: 21.4.2011 Date of decision: 3.6.2011 Ranjeet Singh and others ….Petitioners. Versus Polu Ram and others ….Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner: Ms. Devyani Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Sanjeev Kuthiala, Advocate. _________________________________________________ Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) 1. By means of this petition, the petitioners here-in-after referred to as the defendants had challenged the order dated 8.11.2010 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Solan, whereby he dismissed the appeal of the defendants and upheld the order of the learned trial Court, whereby the defendants were restrained from obstructing the passage which were shown to be passing through the land bearing Khasra No. 197. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondents here-in-after referred to as the plaintiffs field a suit for declaration and 1 Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. 2 injunction to the effect that a passage exists over Khasra No. 197 belonging to the defendants. According to the plaintiffs this passage is in existence since time immemorial and leads from their houses towards the agricultural land of the plaintiffs and other villagers. The defendants contested the suit and denied that any passage as claimed by the petitioners and shown in existence in the site plan existed on the spot. According to the defendants the site plan annexed with the plaint did not reflect the correct position. Further, according to the defendants the khasra numbers which were alleged to be connected with Khasra No. 191 are very far away from Khasra No. 197. According to the defendants, the plaintiffs had a separate passage but not over Khasra No. 197. 3. Both the Courts below on the basis of the material on record especially the affidavits filed by the plaintiffs and co-villagers came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs had prima facie proved that a right of passage exists over Khasra No. 197. The Courts below have not only relied upon the site plan but also on the affidavits of three villagers who stated that passage is in existence from time immemorial. True it is that 3 the site plan is not part of the revenue record but the site plan has been placed on record and there is evidence of co-villagers supporting the site plan. 4. When two Courts have gone through the evidence and passed an order, this Court in exercise of its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India would not interfere in such an order. This Court is not to reassess the correctness of the orders passed by the trial Court in exercise of such jurisdiction but only correct jurisdictional error or perverse orders. In the present case both views could have been taken and both the Courts below have taken one view which is a possible view. This Court at this stage does not want to make any comment about the merits of the case of either party. Therefore, the present petition is dismissed since, there is no jurisdictional error in the orders of the Courts below. It is, however, made clear that this will have no bearing on the merits of the case which must be decided by the learned trial Court on the basis of the evidence led before it. No costs. 3rd June, 2011 (Deepak Gupta) ™ Judge