Narendra Kumar Jain, J. - (1.) THE aforesaid two writ petitions arise out of one suit in between both the parties, therefore, both were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
(2.) BOTH the writ petitions are admitted. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
(3.) THE plaintiff -petitioner filed a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction in the trial court against defendant -respondents in respect of disputed way alongwith an application for temporary injunction. The trial court vide its order dated 27th November, 2006 appointed Shri Imran Pathan, advocate to go at the spot and prepare a site report and also passed the order maintaining status -quo in respect of disputed way. The Commissioner prepared his report dated 28th November, 2006. During the pendency of application for temporary injunction, an another application was filed and second Commissioner was appointed, who submitted his report on 23rd August, 2007. The grievance of the defendant -respondents before the trial court was that inspite of status -quo order passed by the trial court on 27th November, 2006 and report of Commissioner dated 28th November, 2006, the plaintiff himself blocked the disputed way and he tried to make interference to use the disputed way by defendants. Both the parties filed an application under Section 151 CPC for their respective grievances but trial court vide its order dated 14th November,2007 disposed of both the applications filed by both the parties under Section 151 CPC and directed the plaintiff to restore the position of disputed way as per report of court commissioner dated 28th November, 2006. Being aggrieved with the same, the present writ petitions have been preferred on behalf of the plaintiff.;