PRAKASH TATIA, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) It appears from the facts of the case that the plaintiff filed the suit for permanent injunction with the allegations that for plaintiff's agricultural land, there is a way from agricultural field of various other agriculturists including the defendants' agricultural field. The defendants tried to obstruct the way, upon which the Tehsildar inspected the site and prepared a map on 24.1.1992 and found the way on spot running from the defendants' agricultural fields 416/1, 416/2 and 416/Min. Despite said decision of the Tehsildar, the defendants again obstructed the plaintiff on 6.2.1992, therefore, the plaintiff filed the present suit for injunction and in para 2 of the plaint clearly stated that the defendants be restrained from obstructing the plaintiff's way so that the plaintiff may take his cattle, bullock-cart, tractor etc. from the way. The dispute was settled by compromise decree on 27.6.1992. In the compromise decree, there is no mention about the width of the way. In the compromise decree, there is only mention that the plaintiff shall be entitled to use the way shown by dark black line shown in the map and the defendants shall not obstruct the way.
(3.) After the decree when the defendants judgment debtors obstructed the way, the plaintiff submitted execution petition. The executing court held that there is no specific width given in the decree for the way but the way should be of 8 ft. The executing court directed the Sales Amin to keep the way of 8 ft. in place of way of 12 ft. which was opened by the court officer, by order dated 26.2.1998.;