1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8584 OF 2010 Mrs. Bhimabai Runja Ugale & Ors. ...Petitioners. v. Mrs. Shobha T. Ugale ...Respondent. Mr. S.P.Thorat, adv., for the petitioner. Ms Anita Sachdev i/by Shri B.P.Abnale, advs., for the respondent. CORAM : J.H.Bhatia, J. DATE : 26th October, 2010 P.C.: 1 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2 Petitioners before this Court are the original defendants. They are holders of land gat no.314 and 315 situated at Baragaon Pimpri Taluka: Sinnar, District Nashik. Plaintiff/respondent is the holder of land gat nos.316 and 317. As there was no passage to approach the public road, petitioners approached Tehsildar for laying down appropriate passage. It was registered as Case No.14/2008 Tehsildar by an order dated 21.2.2009 directed that the petitioners shall have right to approach land gat nos.314 and 315 from Baragaon Pimpri to Datali Road through gat no.287 and 306 and then from the boundary of gat no.319, 318, 317 and 316/1 and 316/2, which runs East-West. He also directed that the petitioner may construct passage 2 from the Northen side of that East-West boundary. Land survey nos. 315 and 314, belonging to the petitioners, also share the same boundary. 3 Respondent filed Regular Civil Suit No.261 of 2008 seeking perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from the using said passage. She also filed an application for temporary injunction. It was rejected by the trial Court. She preferred Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No.92 of 2009. That appeal was allowed by the impugned order dated 20th September, 2010 and temporary injunction was granted in favour of the plaintiff and thus, defendants have been restrained from using the passage leading to the public road. 4 Admittedly, order of Tehsildar passed under the provisions of Land Revenue Code has become final, as it was never challenged by the adjoining owners including the defendants. The appellate court failed to consider the order passed by the Tehsildar a well as map showing location of these lands. The defendants/petitioners have no other way to approach public road except through that boundary and through the adjoining lands, which are not belonging to the plaintiff. Plaintiff is owner of only 316 and 317 and the Tehsildar has directed to lay passage through the East-West boundary running between the 3 Survey No.317 to the Northen side and survey nos. 318, 316 and 315 to the Southern side. If that passage is laid, that will not cause any inconvenience to the plaintiff. Taking into consideration these circumstances, I find that no prima-facie case was made out by the plaintiff for the temporary injunction against the defendants. If the temporary injunction is granted, it will cause great hardship to the defendants and refusal thereof will not cause any such hardship to the plaintiff. 5 For the aforesaid reasons, petition is allowed. Impugned order passed by the District Court is hereby set aside and the order passed by the trial Court is restored. (J.H.BHATIA, J.) 4