MILAP CHANDRA, J. - (1.) THIS revision petition has been filed by the plaintiff-petitioners against the order of the Additional District Judge, Nagaur, dated January 8, 1986, by which he has allowed" the appeal and set aside the order of the Munsif, Deedwana dated May, 12, 1982, restraining them from using the plaintiffs' field bearing Khasra No. 20 situated in village Fogedi as a way. The facts of the case giving rise to this revision petition may briefly be stated as follows: -
(2.) THE plaintiff-non-petitioners filed a suit for injunction in the court of the Munsif, Deedwana, with the allegations in short, that the defendants have started using their field as a way for going to their fields, no such way exists and they have another way which they are not using. Along with the plaint, an application under Order 39 Rules i & 2 was moved. Ex-parte injunction was granted. THE defendants filed their reply. After hearing the parties, the learned Munsif allowed the application and restrained the defendants from using the plaintiffs' field as their way. On appeal, the learned Additional District Judge, Nagaur, set aside the order of the Munsif. It is contended by the learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioners that the learned appellate court has seriously erred in setting aside the order of the Munsif, there exists no good ground for interference and the appellate court has committed material irregularity and illegality in the exercise of its jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the defendant-non-petitioners duly supported the order under appeal. It is the admitted case of the parties that no document was filed by either party in connection with the disputed way. Both the courts below have observed in their judgments that the defendants have filed affidavits of more neighbours than that of the plaintiffs. The site was inspected by the Munsif and he found the disputed portion of the plaintiffs, field recently levelled. The learned Additional District Judge has also observed in his judgment under appeal that the affidavits of the defendants appear to be more reliable. It is also the admitted case of the parties that the Panchayat took action and held that the disputed way exists since long. Under these facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that the learned Additional District Judge, Nagaur, has committed material irregularity or illegality in the exercise of his jurisdiction in passing the impugned order.
(3.) IN the result, the revision petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. .;