H.N. Tilhari, J. - (1.) This is plaintiffs' second appeal, arising oil of a judgment and decree dated 11-11-1978 passed by Sri K.N. Misra, II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Kheri in civil appeal no. 144 of 1978, confirming and affirming the judgment and decree dated 19-8-1978 passed by Sri N.B. Singh, Munsif Kheri in suit no. 195 of 1973 dismissing the plaintiff-respondents' claims for permanent injunction.
(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff-respondents filed the suit for decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from occupying the land towards the south-east on the road adjacent to the plaintiffs' shop situated in Khapraila Bazar, Lakhimpur Kheri of which the plaintiffs claimed themselves to be the tenants of Rameshwar Dayal Gupta who is the owner Landlord thereof.
(3.) According to the plaint allegations, on the east of the shop of the plaintiff-appellants there is a road and similarly to the South of the plaintiff's shop also there exists a road or Rasta. That on the eastern side as well as on the northern side of the plaintiffs' shop, there are shops belonging to different shop keepers According to the plaintiffs' case, the defendant-respondents placed their 'Takhat' on the public passage towards the south of the shop of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs appellants claimed themselves to be entitled to the right of user of public Rasta on both the side, that is, east and south of their shop. According to the plaintiffs, by placing the 'Takhat the defendant-respondents started causing interference with the plaintiffs' right of way and to cause inconvenience to the plaintiff in the suit. The plaintiffs' have also impleaded the Municipal Board as one of the defendants in the suit and it was alleged that no notice has been given to the Municipal Board Lakhimpur Kheri, as the suit was for permanent injunction and if two months notice would have been given, the suit would have become in fructuous. The plaintiffs prayed that decree of permanent injunction be granted in their favour against the defendant-respondents restraining them from illegally interfering or from taking and continuing illegal possession of the land in dispute which has affected the plaintiffs' right of way over the land in dispute and its user.;