IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.330 of 2008 Ajay Kumar Singh, son of late Anirudh Prasad Singh, resident of Mohalla-Raisar, P.S. Kotwali, District- Munger ------ Defendant—Petitioner. Versus Hari Nandan Prasad Verma, son of late Sheo Prasad Lall, resident of Mohalla_Raisar, P.S. Kotwali, District_Munger ----- Plaintiff ---- Opposite Party. ----------- 5. 30.7.2010 Heard Mr. Ajit Kumar Singh No.2 for the petitioner. The defendant has preferred this civil revision application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure and assailed the validity of the judgment dated 21.11.2007, passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.2, Munger, in Misc. Appeal No. 19 of 2007 (Hari Nandan Prasad Verma Vrs. Shanti Devi and others), whereby his appeal has been allowed, the order of the learned Munsif has been set aside, and the parties have been directed to maintain status-quo with respect to the disputed lane in question. 2. A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of this civil revision application may be indicated. The plaintiff (opposite party herein) instituted Title Suit No. 4 of 2007, in the court of the learned Munsif IInd, Munger, inter alia, for the declaration that he has easementary right 2 over the lane next to his house. The plaintiff filed an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, before the learned Munsif with the prayer that he may be allowed to use the lane until the disposal of the suit which was rejected, leading to the aforesaid Misc. Appeal No. 19 of 2007. The appeal has been allowed by the impugned judgment. The learned Additional District and Sessions Judge has held that the plaintiff is in occupation of his house on the strength of registered sale deed of 15.5.1951, and has ever since been using the lane next to his house for ingress and egress. In that view of the matter, the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge has observed that the plaintiffs have a prima facie case and the balance of convenience is also in his favour. He has, therefore, directed the parties to maintain status-quo with respect to the disputed land. We entirely agree with the conclusion of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, and equally with the reasonings assigned by him. 3. We do not find any merit in this civil revision application. It is accordingly rejected. Vinay/ ( S. K. Katriar,J. )