I. S. ISRANI, J. - (1.) THIS revision petition has been filed against the judgment and order dated 10. 9. 1982 of the learned Additional District Judge, Kishangarh Bas in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 48/81 whereby the judgment and order dated 2. 111981 of learned Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate, Kishangarh-bas on the application filed under order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C. P. C.
(2.) THE plaintiff petitioner filed a suit in the court of learned Munsiff, alleging that he had right of way to reach his agricultural lands bearing khasra Nos. 7 & 8 from the agricultural land of defendant-non-petitioners. It was further stated that this way was used by the petitioner and his fore-fathers for over hundred years and they also had right to take their bullock carts and bullocks with yokes through this alleged way. THE non-petitioners denied the existence of any such way from their fields and asserted that an alternate way which was about 10-11 feet wide was available and in use by the plaintiff-petitioner as well as by the other villagers for reaching their respective fields. THE petitioner filed an application for issue of ad-interim temporary injunction supported by his own affidavit and that of one Ghugan Singh in support of his assertion and the non- petitioners filed about seven affidavits alongwith their reply denying the existence of such right of way to the petitioner. Learned trial court visited the site on 31. 10. 1981 and after considering the affidavits and other material on record, came to the conclusion that the petitioner had no prima facie case in his favour and there was no such way in existence. Therefore, the appli-cation, for issue of ad-interim injunction was dismissed. An appeal was filed by the petitioner, which was also rejected by the impugned order.- The contention of Shri N. K. Maloo, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the affidavit of Ghugan Singh has not been properly considered by the trial court as it was stated in that affidavit that the defendant-non-petitioners had destroyed the way by giving water. It is further stated that the petitioner has customary right of way and reliance has been placed on Chandgiram Vs. Ramjilal (1 ). Shri H. C Rastogi, learned counsel for the non-petitioners has contended that both the courts below have come to a conclusion after considering all material records produced by both the parties that there was no prima facie case in favour of the petitioner and, therefore, his application for issue of ad-interim temporary injunction was rejected. It is contended that the learned trial court also visited the site and there after came to the conclusion that there was no existence of the alleged way, which is said to have been used by the petitioner and his fore-fathers. It is further submitted that the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the non-petitioners, have changed the face of the road and destroyed the same by giving water, was not raised even in the first appellate court. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and also gone through the judgments of both the courts below.
(3.) LEARNED first appellate court has given a reasoned judgment, in which all aspects of the matter have been considered. In the site inspection report the trial court has mentioned that there was an alternate way in existence, which has been used by the petitioner as also by the other villagers to reach their respective agricultural lands and the width of the same was around 10 feet. In the case of Chandgiram (supra) it was observed by this court that customary easement of having access of one's field would be available to the tenants of the lands newly brought in cultivation. Evidently, this land has been under cultivation since long and,therefore, no fresh customary rights could be acquired by the petitioner. Reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the non-petitioners on the often quoted authority of the Apex Court in Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. vs. Ajit Prasad (2 ). It was held by the Apex Court that the High Court should not interfere even if the order is right or wrong or in accordance with law or not unless the lower court has exercised its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. In the case of Municipal Corporation vs. Suresh Chand (3) it was observed by the Apex Court that when the trial court and the first appellate court had refused to grant interim injunction in favour of the petitioner. the High Court should be slow in interfering with such an order. In M. L. Sethi vs. R. P. Kapoor (4) while discussing the powers of the High Court under sec. 115 C. P. C. it was observed that the jurisdiction of the High Court under sec. 115 C. P. C is limited one. In the present case both the courts below have reached a particular conclusion regarding a matter for which they had jurisdiction to decide. They have considered all the relevant documents and affidavits filed by both the parties, even the trial court has visited the site and reached a conclusion, according to which the relief of grant ad-interim injunction to the petitioner was refused. I do not find any reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of both the courts below. In the result, the revision petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. .;