RAM SINGH Vs. NAHAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed this writ petition against the order dt. 18.09.2013 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Camp at Gangapur, Bhilwara (for short 'the appellate Court' hereinafter) and the order dt. 30.07.2013 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gangapur, Bhilwara (for short 'the trial Court' hereinafter). Brief facts of the case are that respondent Nos. 1 to 4 filed a suit for permanent injunction with a prayer for restraining the respondents from interfering with the use of way in Araji Nos. 392 and 1106 of revenue village Diyas. Along with the suit for permanent injunction, the respondents also filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for granting temporary injunction against the petitioner. The application for temporary injunction was contested by the petitioner and the learned trial Court had appointed a Commissioner and directed him to submit the factual report. The Commissioner submitted the factual report, wherein he had mentioned that the petitioner obstructed the way of the respondent Nos. 1 to 4. The learned trial Court after hearing both the parties and after taking into consideration the report of the Commissioner, allowed the application for temporary injunction preferred by the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and ordered for removal of the obstruction, as mentioned in the Commissioner's report. Being aggrieved with this, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned appellate Court, which came to be dismissed vide order dt. 18.09.2013. Against the said orders, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned Courts below have passed the impugned orders solely on the basis of the report of the Commissioner and have not taken into consideration the contention of the petitioner to the effect that the respondents are having alternate way to approach their agriculture fields and residence. The learned counsel for the petitioner has, therefore, prayed that the impugned orders passed by both the Courts below may be quashed and set aside.

(3.) THE learned trial Court, after taking into consideration the report of the Commissioner, observed that the Commissioner has specifically mentioned that the petitioner has obstructed the way of the respondents and the petitioner has failed to prove that there is any alternate way available to the respondents.