1 48 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 11627/2010. Panna Bheel Vs. Ramchandra & Anr. Date of Order :: 15th December 2010. HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. Bharat Devasi, for the petitioner. <><><> BY THE COURT: Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the material placed on record, this Court is unable to find any reason to consider interference in the extra- ordinary writ jurisdiction in the orders passed by the learned subordinate Courts whereby the temporary injunction application made by the respondents-plaintiffs has been allowed and then, the appeal taken by the petitioner-defendant has also been dismissed. In the matter of grant of temporary injunction, the learned Trial Court has considered all the facts and circumstances of the case and found the plaintiffs entitled for grant of temporary injunction to the effect that the defendants will not obstruct the use of pathway on the southern boundary of their field. The Appellate Court has over again examined the record and found no case for interference. 2 The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the plaintiffs have not been able to establish the existence of such right by prescription; that the alleged path has not been shown in the revenue record as way; and that an alternative way is available to the plaintiffs. The learned counsel further submits that with granting of such an injunction, practically the suit itself has been decreed. The submissions so made have their own shortcomings. It is the customary easement to pass through the boundaries of the neighbouring fields that has been recognised by the learned subordinate Courts while granting temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiffs. The learned Trial Court has consciously taken note of the fact that if a person is deprived of reaching his field, he suffers more inconvenience and injury. The learned Trial Court has also consciously taken note of the submissions on behalf of the plaintiff that looking to the present need, the plaintiff would be satisfied with only a pathway on the southern boundary of the defendant's field and then his right of taking the vehicle etc. on 10 feet wide way may be decided in the suit. In the given set of facts and circumstances, the order passed by the learned Trial Court remains unexceptionable. The alternative way as suggested by the petitioner has also been found to be not the 3 recorded way and rather an onerous one. It cannot be said that by granting such relief by the learned Trial Court, the suit itself is decreed. Of course, the claim for perpetual injunction as made in the suit would be considered on the evidence adduced by the parties but during the pendency of the suit when the learned subordinate Courts found all the necessary ingredients for grant of temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiffs, no case is made out for interference in the extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction. The writ petition fails and is, therefore, dismissed summarily. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. /Mohan/