CRP 133/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.N. SARMA The supervisory power of this Court has been prayed to be exerci sed by the petitioner challenging the judgment and order dated 18/3/10 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Dibrugarh in Misc. Appeal No.17/09 thereby dismissing the appeal and affirming the judgment and order dated 15/6/09 passed by the lear ned Munsiff, No.1, Dibrugarh in Misc.(J) Case No.65/07 arising out of Title Suit No.172/07 granting injunction in favour of the plaintiff. 2) I have heard Mr. CK Sarma Baruah, learned Senior Counsel for the defendant /petitioner and also heard Mr. N. Choudhury, learned counsel for the plaintiffs/respondents. 3) The plaintiffs/respondents instituted a suit being Title Suit No .172/07 in the court of learned Munsiff, No1, Dibrugarh praying for declaration of right, title and interest and to enjoy exclusively the private Dutta Bagan ro ad and also for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants/resp ondents and their men from using, entering and passing through the road. 4) The specific prayers made in the suit are as follows: (i) For a declaration that the plaintiff and their family members and all resi dents of Duttta Bagan Private Area have exclusive right to use and enjoy over th e private Dutta Bagan/road mentioned in the Schedule below and also shown in the Sketch map with red dotted colour boundary annexed herewith. (ii) For a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their servants, employees, agents, representatives or any one acting through or under them from using, entering and passing through the said Private Road of Dutta Bagan Area me ntioned in the Schedule below as well as shown int eh Sketch map attached herewi th, and also for not obstructing, interfering in any manner at the time of closi ng the southern dead end of the Private road of Dutta Bagan which is just behind the existing Motor Garage(house). (iii) For directing the I/C, Barbari Police Out Post of Dibrugarh Town, to gi ve all necessary Police protection at the time of closing the dead end of Privat e path of Dutta Bagan by way of pucca wall. iv) All cost of the suit, v) Any other relief or reliefs, to which the plaintiffs are entitled to in law and in equity. 5) Along with the said suit plaintiffs also filed an application fo r temporary injunction restraining the defendants and their men from using and t respassing the dead end of the Dutta Bagan Area or creating nuisance and harassi ng the petitioners/plantiffs in any manner. The aforesaid petition for injuncti on was registered as Misc(J) Case No.65/2007. 6) The defendants contested the suit objecting the grant of injunct ion by filing written statement. The learned trial court after hearing both sid es passed an order held that the plaintiff has become successful in making a pri ma facie case and to show the balance of convenience in their favour and that if the injunction as prayed for is not granted, the petitioners will suffer irrepa rable loss and injuries and passed the order of injunction against the defendant s on 15/6/09. 7) The defendants/petitioner carried the aforesaid order into appea l being Misc. (A) No.17/09 in the court of learned Civil Judge, Dibrugarh. The court of learned Civil Judge passed the impugned order dated 18/3/10 dismissing the appeal affirming the order passed by the learned trial court. Challenging t he aforesaid judgment, the present petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India is filed before this Court. 8) The pleaded case of the plaintiffs/ respondents is that they pur chased the suit land from the original owner and for the last 22 years they are residing therein constructing residential houses. The land under their occupatio n is situated in the Dutta Bagan Road, Dibrugarh which is a compact sole private area and for their use and transportation they have been using the Dutta Bagan Road from the southern side to the northern side of the compact area which in o ne side ends on the E & D drain and on the other side ends with the G.N. Road. S ince inception the original owner was having work shop on the southern end of th e Dutta Bagan Road having kutcha drain on both sides. When they started to close the backside of the work shop by permanent iron fencing or brick wall then the opposite parties along with some other persons of that locality did not allow to complete the work, rather, threatened them with dire consequences. It is also c ontended that the opposite parties/ defendants have no right whatsoever over the private road having been causing disturbance in their use and occupation. 9) The opposite party in their objection contended that apart from usual plea also contended that they have formed a Committee for welfare of the p eople living in the locality and for the last 100 years they have been using the suit part and the suit land is not a private road as alleged by the plaintiffs. In December, 2006, they have constructed a house measuring about 7 ft. x 18 ft. with CI Sheets, wooden window, bricks within a short time in the junction of Du tta Bagan Public Road and tried to erect a pucca boundary wall thereon by closin g the egress and ingress of the public and, accordingly, they objected to such m ove of the plaintiffs. 10) The learned Trial Court after consideration of the documents and materials available on record and upon hearing the parties held that there is n othing on record show that the Dutta Baruah Road is a public part and there is a ny public record in this regard in the Government or with municipality. From the arguments of both sides advanced before this Court it was found by the learned Trial Court that on both sides of the E & D drain there are two roads measuring about 7 ft each. Considering the nature of the case the learned Trial Court pers onally conducted spot verification wherein the parties and their respective coun sels were present and a rough sketch map was prepared. Upon such inspection from the rough sketch map, it was found by the learned Trial Court that two roads on the sides of the E & D drain are linked with Garodia Road which is again linked with the main road is not correct and there is a garage/ house constructed by t he plaintiffs over the south end of the Dutta Bagan Road is found over the said Road which is stated to be constructed in the year 1985 while the defendants con tended that it was constructed 4/5 years back. Upon consideration of those facts , the learned Trial Court found that since the garage/ construction was made by the plaintiffs in the year 2003-04 by blocking the ingress or egress, there is n o question of using the same road in the recent past by the defendants. 11) The learned Trial Court considered all the aspects of the matter and did not found any reasonable ground to arrive at a different finding from t hat of the finding arrived at by the learned Munsiff which is based on record an d, consequently, dismissed the appeal. Both the Courts below have considered the basic principles in granting the injunction. On such consideration both the le arned Courts below found a prima facie case and the balance of convenience in fa vour of the defendants and was of the view that in the event the injunction is n ot grant the defendants will suffer irreparable loss and injuries. Accordingly, injunction was granted in favour of the defendants/ respondents. 12) Although Mr CK Sarma Baruah strenuously urged that the Courts be low did not consider easementary right acquired by the defendants under Section 25 of the Limitation Act but no right was claimed by the defendants before the C ourts below. In the written objection also no such plea has been taken. That apa rt, the principle as enshrined in Section 25 would not be applicable in the inst ant case in respect of the obstruction in enjoying such right allegedly created upon the petitioner continued since 2003 as held by the court below. The learned appellate Court in passing the impugned judgment has not committed any jurisdic tional error calling the same to be a perverse one. The impugned judgments passe d by the learned Courts below are elaborative and speaking. The learned courts b elow were fully within their jurisdiction in passing the impugned and it has rig htly passed the order in exercise of the jurisdiction vested upon them by law. 13) Mr. N Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondents submits tha t the plaintiffs have got adequate alternative for ingress and egress to the mai n road which enable the petitioners to reach the main road and no inconvenience at any point of time has been caused by the petitioners by way of construction o f the garage/ house and by going to install the fencing/ wall as proposed. 14) Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of t he impugned judgment and order, I am of the view that the learned Appellate Cour t was fully within its jurisdiction in passing the impugned order. The petitione r has failed to make out a case for interference in exercise of supervisory juri sdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 15) Consequently, this revision petition stands dismissed being devo id of any merit. No costs.