- (1.) In this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the impugned judgment and order dated 26th September, 2011 passed by the Ld. 9th Additional District Court at Alipore in Misc. Appeal No. 366 of 2002 is under challenge. The said Misc. Appeal was preferred against order no. 63 dated 22nd July, 2002 passed by the Ld. 3rd Civil Court (Junior Division) at Alipore in an application for injunction filed by the plaintiff in connection with Title Suit No. 368 of 1996. The plaintiff is the petitioner before this Court in CO 3656 of 2011 and the opposite parties (for short OPs) are the defendants. By the said order dated 22nd July, 2002 the Ld. Trial Court, inter alia, held as follows:- "Plaintiff has prayed for an order of temporary mandatory injunction of defdt. Nos. 1 & 2 to remove the alleged newly constructed gate in the southern passage of the demised premises. According to the defdt no. 1 the alleged gates is that since 1973. Without taking evidence of both sides it cannot be ascertained at this stage where is the alleged gated is a newly constructed or is the same is that since 1973. So, plaintiff's prayer for mandatory injunction cannot be considered at this stage. The plaintiff has also prayed for an order of temporary injunction restraining defdt nos. 1 to 5 their men, agents, masons and mistries from constructing the threatene wall in the suit property and further from obstructing the plaintiff in use and enjoyment of the suit property till disposal of the suit. According to the plaintiff, they have unfettered right to use the passages in suit property in common with defdt. Nos. 1 & 2 and the defdt Nos. 1 & 2 has no right to obstruct the plaintiffs in such, which deft. No.1 has denied. In my opinion, only on the basis of Deed of Lease Dt. 9.8.1989 in Annexure 'A' of the injunction petition and Deed of Assignment dt. 8.10.91 in Annexure 'B' of injunction petn. it can not be ascertained at this stage whether pltff has/have unfettered right to use the passages in suit property or not? Without taking evidence of both sides the above mentioned point can not be ascertained properly. But on a meaningful reading of the injunction petition it appears to me that the plff has a strong prima facie case to go for trial. Considering facts and circumstances of the suit and documents on record, I think that both the plaintiff and defdt nos. 1 to 5 should be directed to maintain status quo in respect of the suit property till disposal of the suit. Hence, it is, orderd that both the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 1 to 5 are hereby directed to maintain status quo in respect of the suit property as mentioned in the schedule of the injunction petition till disposal of the suit. Thus the temporary injunction petition dt. 11.10.96 is disposed of on contest without costs as against defendant No. 1 and exparte as against defendant Nos. 2 to 5 without costs. Fix 12.9.02 for hearing petition u/or. 26 R-9 C.P.C. filed by defdt No.1."
(2.) The order of status quo being carried in appeal by the present OP nos. 1 & 2 as appellants and arraying the plaintiff No. 1 as a respondent, the Ld. Appellate Court took note of the contention of the defendants that taking advantage of the order of status quo the plaintiff has totally blocked the gate of the passage marked as schedule 'C' and using the total passage space from the side of the plaintiff and preventing the defendants, their men and agents from using the said passage at all in common. Further noticing that both the parties to the suit are claiming easement rights over the said disputed passage the Ld. Appellate Court upon consideration of the claim of the plaintiff, as contended at paragraphs 22 & 23 of its application for injunction in the suit, thought it fit to modify the order of status quo passed by the Ld. Trial Court by holding as follows:- "A gate for any on the southern passage of the demised premises should be made accessible so that the 20 ft. passage of the southern side of the demised property can be used by the appellants/defendants, his men, agents and customers as well as respondents-plaintiff, his men and agents till the disposal of the suit."
(3.) Principally aggrieved by such direction of the Ld. Appellate Court the plaintiff has approached this Court by way of the present Civil Revisional Application.;