S.K.Dhaon, J. - (1.) The applicants were defendants in the suit. This suit was for an injunction restraining them from interfering with a certain pathway. The suit was dismissed by the trial court. The plaintiff appealed and the lower appellate court accepted the appeal and remanded the matter to the trial court. The defendants felt aggrieved and hence this appeal.
(2.) The plaintiffs' case was that the defendants were either trying to raise constructions or put obstructions in a pathway marked by letters B, H, K, N, O, M, H, Z, F in the map attached to the plaint. Their case further was that this pathway through the plots Nos. 113 and 114. Issues were struck by the trial court and parties led evidence in support of their respective case. The Trial court disposed of the suit primarily on the basis of its own inspection of the site. The inspection note was marked as paper no. A-51. The following words in the judgment of the trial court were significant:- "In this case, at the joint request and insistence a local inspection was conducted by the court itself for better appreciation of the evidence and the site. The report of the said inspection is A-51." The trial court held that the plaintiffs failed to establish that the defendants had made constructions on the passage in dispute. It also held that the plaintiff's had failed to establish that the constructions made by the defendants were liable to be demolished. It also held that the defendants had succeeded in proving that the constructions really existed on the land owned and occupied by them (defendants) and this land formed part of their tenancy.
(3.) Before the lower appellate court a grievance was made by and on behalf of the plaintiffs that despite an application being made for the preparation of a survey map, the trial court did not advert itself at all to this request. It was also urged that the trial court did not care to give its decision upon the report made by the Commissioner appointed by it and also upon the map submitted by the commissioner along with his report even though the parties had objected to the same on affidavits. The argument, therefore, was that the trial court contented itself by relying solely upon its own inspection note.;