BENI PRASAD SAHU Vs. MAYABAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant -applicant feels aggrieved by an order passed by the lower appellate Court in an appeal filed by them directed against an order passed by the trial Court granting an ad interim temporary injunction whereunder while upholding the finding of the trial Court returned against the present applicant the injunction has been confined to the passage having a width of 4 feet only with a direction for removal of the constructions, if any, obstructing this passage.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the defendant -applicant as well as the learned counsel representing the plaintiff -respondent and have carefully perused the record and the orders passed by the trial Court as well as the lower appellate Court.

(3.) DURING the pendency of the suit an application seeking an ad interim injunction in terms of the decree prayed for was filed by the plaintiff. The trial Court by its order dated 2.9.1997 allowed the application filed by the plaintiff and granted an ad interim injunction as prayed for. On an appraisal of evidence and material on record the trial Court found that the passage claimed by the plaintiff was the only passage available' to her for the ingress and egress of the house in dispute. However, it was found that the defendants have raised constructions over the land in dispute which had already been completed.