MILAP CHANDRA, J. - (1.) THIS revision petition has been filed against the order of the learned Additional -District Judge, Nagaur dated July 6, 1988 by which he dismissed the appeal and confirmed the orders of the Munsif, Ladnu, restraining the defendant petitioner from interfering with the plaintiff-non-petitioners' passage through their field No. 396. The facts of the case giving rise to this revision petition may be summarised thus.
(2.) THE plaintiff-non-petitioners filed a suit for declaration and injunction in the Court of the Munsif, Ladnu with the allegations, in short, that there exists a way through the defendants' field bearing Khasra No. 396 for reaching Sadon ki Dhani situated in Khasras No. 9, 17, 19 and 20. THE defendants tried to obstruct this way and the Gram Panchayat maintained it by its order dated August 7, 1983. THE defendants have again obstructed the way and have threatened to close the same. Along with the plaint, an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, C. P. C. was moved. It was seriously opposed by the defendants. Commissioners were appointed twice for the inspection of the site. THEy submitted their reports. After hearing the parties, the learned Munsif granted injunction by his order dated April 2, 1985. He also ordered for the removal of the Jhumpa. THE defendant-petitioners filed appeal. It was heard and dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Nagaur as said above. The learned counsel for the defendant-petitioners has contended that the learned lower courts have not properly taken into consideration the materials on record. He also contended that both the Commissioners have reported that there exists another way for going to the said Dhani. He further contended that the affidavits filed by the plaintiff-non-petitioners do not inspire confidence and they are not of independent persons. He lastly contended that under the facts and circumstances of the case, injunction in the mandatory form could not have been issued. The learned counsel for the plaintiff-non-petitioners duly supported the order under revision. Admittedly, site was inspected by two Commissioners on two different dates and the disputed way was found existing in the defendants' field No. 396. It is also not in dispute that the Gram Panchayat also directed the defendants to remove the obstruction put by them on the disputed way by its order dated August 7, 1983. The learned Additional District Judge has placed greater reliance on the affidavits filed by the plaintiffs than that of the affidavits filed by the defendants. It has been held in the Girdharilal vs. Maha Devi, (1) and Vimla Devi vs. Jang Bahadur, (2) that an appellate court should be very slow in interfering with such discretionary orders of a trial court.
(3.) IT has been observed in Hindustan Aeronatics vs. Ajit Prasad, (3) as follows :- "5. . In our opinion the High Court had no jurisdiction to interfere with the order of the first appellate court. IT is on the conclusion of the High Court that the first appellate Court had no jurisdiction to make the order that it made. The order of the first appellate court may be right or wrong may be in accordance with law or may not be in accordance with law, but one thing is clear that it had jurisdiction to make that order. IT is not the case that the first appellate court exercised its jurisdiction either illegally or with material irregularity. That being so, the High Court could not have invoked its jurisdiction under S. 115 of the Civil Procedure Code: See the decisions of this Court in Pandurang Dhoni v. Maruti Hari Jadhav, (1966)1 SCR 102= (AIR 1966 SC 153), and D. L. F. Housing & Construction Co. (P.) Ltd. , New Delhi vs. Sarup Singh, (1970) 2 SCR 368 = (AIR 1971 SC 2324 ). " Thus there is no force in the revision petition. Consequently, the revision petition is dismissed with costs. .;