Sureshwar Thakur, J. - (1.)The plaintiff/respondent herein (for short "plaintiff") , by constituting Civil Suit No. 98/1 of 2013, before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) , Sirmaur District at Nahan, H.P., claimed vis-'-vis a portion of Khasra No. 1991, an apposite right of user thereof by him, as a path, for his accessing his house, and, obviously, espoused rendition of a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction, against, the defendant, for restraining him, from precluding him to use a portion of Khasra No. 1991, as a path. The common vendor of the parties at contest, is, one Prabhat Kumar, wherefrom the parties at contest hence purchased separate khasra numbers.
(2.)During the pendency of the aforesaid Civil suit, an application was preferred by the plaintiff, cast under the provisions of Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 readwith section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, wherein he sought rendition of an ad-interim injunction, against, the defendant/petitioner herein (for short "petitioner") , for, hence restraining her, from, interfering with his using a portion of khasra No. 1991, as a path, for his accessing his house. The learned trial Court declined relief to the plaintiff. The plaintiff being aggrieved from the order rendered by the learned trial Court, preferred an appeal, therefrom before the learned District Judge, Sirmaur, District at Nahan, H.P. The learned District Judge granted relief to the plaintiff. The defendant being aggrieved, from, the order rendered by the learned District Judge, has hence preferred the present petition.
(3.)Even though certain pleaded admissions are made by the defendant vis-'-vis the averments borne in the plaint, with respect to right to user of path, by the plaintiff vis-'-vis a portion borne, on Khasra No. 1991. (i) However, the effect thereof, is, qua thereupon the plaintiff cannot perse, at this stage, make any capitalization (b) given the dimensions thereof being not admitted nor relevant demarcation(s) , for ascertaining its commencement, and, ending and besides its evident dimension not existing on record (c) whereas existence of the aforesaid material, is imperative, for rather rendering an apposite efficacious binding conclusive decree (d) nonetheless with Khasra No. 1991 being borne in a sale deed executed by Mr. Prabhat Kumar vis-'-vis the plaintiff, execution of sale deed whereof, is evidently prior to a sale deed executed by Mr. Prabhat Kumar vis-'-vis the defendant, (c) and, with right of user of path, borne on Khasra No. 1991, stands, espoused to be preserved vis-'-vis the vendee therein, and, when a covenant qua the aforesaid facet, is also borne in the earlier sale deed executed interse Mr. Prabhat Kumar, and, the plaintiff (d) thereupon the defendant, the latter vendee, is obliged to carry into effect the aforesaid apposite covenant, hence occurring in the earlier apposite sale deed. However, though the aforesaid espousals made before this Court appears to be borne in mind by the learned appellate Court, yet, when imputation of credence thereto, was without leave being granted, for adduction of the apposite sale deed into evidence, hence any reliance placed thereon, was neither appropriate nor legally proper.