LEKH RAJ TEKRA Vs. RANIYA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against the order dated 11.1.2011 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Solan in Civil Appeal No. 10-S/14 of 2009 (probably it should have been numbered as Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and not Civil appeal) whereby he set aside the order of the learned Trial Court dated 21.8.2009 dismissing the application for interim relief filed by the Respondents (hereinafter referred to as the 'Plaintiffs'). The learned Lower Appellate Court vide the impugned order has remanded the case back to the learned Trial court to hear the matter afresh and decide both the applications together and has further directed the parties to maintain status quo qua the nature and possession of the suit land in question.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the Plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction against the present Petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the 'Defendant'). It is alleged in the suit that Plaintiffs No. 1 to 3 are owners of two separate parcels of land situate in Mauja Basal Patti Kather, Pargana Salumna Basal, Tehsil and District Solan, H.P. According to the Plaintiffs, their residential houses were existing between Chambaghat Bawra Road and Chambaghat Basal Road. It was also alleged that a bye pass road is existing on the spot which is being used by the Plaintiffs and the other members of the public and they have a right of easement and prescription by way of necessity. They claimed that a path, 1 1/2 meters in width, exists on the road. It was further alleged that this bye pass road passes through Khasra No. 2341/442 which was purchased by the Defendant on 10.4.2008. According to the Plaintiffs, the Defendant is trying to raise construction on this Khasra number and thereby is going to block the path. It was alleged that the Defendant has no right to interfere in the easementary rights of the Plaintiffs and, therefore, the suit was filed not only in the personal capacity but also on behalf of the general public.

(3.) The Defendant contested the suit and denied that any bye pass road as claimed existed on the spot. It was denied that the Plaintiffs have any easementary right over the path.