(1.) THE predecessors-in-title of the Respondents had filed a suit against the present Appellants being S.C. Suit No.5317 of 1988. The predecessors-in-title claimed a right of way through the land of present Appellants based on an Agreement dated 24th September, 1976. By the said Agreement the Respondents permitted the predecessors-in-title the use of an access as set out in para 3 of the said agreement. There was some dispute in respect of this property between the Appellants on the one hand and another person claiming to the said property. The said dispute was resolved by Agreement dated 25th February 1982 and in the said agreement there is a recital that the agreement dated 24th September, 1976 is valid and subsisting.
(2.) ON the Notice of Motion being taken out by the predecessor-in-title of the Respondents in S.C. Suit No.5317 of 1988 the City Civil Court was pleased to pass an order dated 3rd August 1988. Part of the order reads as under:-
(3.) SOME observations of the Court in the order perhaps may not be warranted. However, that does not mean that the ultimate conclusion arrived at by the Court can be said to be perverse as to warrant interference by this Court. Admittedly, there is an access. The access is being used. The fact that there may be another alternative access is no answer more so in view of the orders in S.C. Suit No.5317 of 1988 as also the order in the present suit. The orders are operating against the Appellants right from the year August 1988. The alternative road was existing when the predecessors-in-title of the Respondents entered into the agreement dated 24th September, 1986. Though there was a clause in the agreement regarding payment of some compensation for the use of the access and it is contended that the compensation is not paid, there was no provision in the agreement for terminating the contract on that ground. In view of the same, no interference is called for. Appeal as also the Civil Application rejected. There shall be no order as to costs.