- (1.) The petitioners-plaintiffs are aggrieved by the order dated 31.3.2012 passed by the Additional District Judge No.2, Deeg, District Bharatpur, whereby the learned Judge has quashed and set aside the order dated 15.11.2011 passed by the Gram Nyayalaya, Kaman, District Bharatpur, wherein the learned Magistrate had granted a temporary injunction in favour of the petitioners-plaintiffs.
(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners-plaintiffs had filed a suit for permanent injunction regarding a common way against the respondents-defendants before the Civil Judge (J.D.) Kaman. Along with the suit, they had filed an application for temporary injunction, wherein they had claimed that since time immemorial, there is a public way from Jatwan Basti, village Udaka to Akata road. The said public way has been used by the petitioners-defendants and others for a long time. However, the respondents-defendants have started obstructing their ingress and outgress on the said road. Therefore, the civil suit. The respondents-defendants, on the other hand, filed the reply and denied the fact that there was a public way. According to them, when the agriculture land lies fallow, the villagers tend to use to walk way (Pagdandi) near the boundary of their field. However, it was not a public way. They have also claimed that because of trespass made by the petitioners-defendants, they had filed a FIR against them. After hearing both the parties, by order dated 15.11.2011, the learned Magistrate granted temporary injunction in favour of the petitioners-defendants. However, as the respondents-defendants were aggrieved by the said order, they filed an appeal before the learned Judge. By order dated 31.3.2012, the learned Judge has quashed and set aside the order dated 15.11.2011. Hence, this petition before this Court.
(3.) Dr. Sohan Lal Sharma, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has vehemently contended that the learned Judge has ignored the fact that the public way has been used by the villagers since time immemorial. In order to buttress their contention, the petitioners-defendants have submitted affidavits of few villagers. However, the learned Judge has ignored these affidavits. Secondly, even in the Commissioner's report, the public way was clearly shown as existing in the fields belonging to the respondents-defendants. Thirdly, that due to obstructions caused by the respondents-defendants, cross FIRs have been filed by both the parties. Therefore, the learned Judge was not justified in setting aside the temporary injunction. Thus, the impugned order deserves to be interfered with.;