1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally, at the stage of admission itself, by consent of Mr. Anturkar, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners, and Mr. Sawant, learned counsel for the Respondents.

2. This Writ Petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, takes an exception to the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the two Courts below, thereby allowing the application for interim injunction filed by the Respondents-Plaintiffs at “Exhibit-5” in Special Civil Suit No.1246 of 2016. The order challenged in this Writ Petition is dated 23rd August 2017 passed by the District Judge-14, Pune, thereby dismissing the Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No.12 of 2017, confirming the order passed below “Exhibit-5” by the Trial Court.

3. According to the Petitioners, they are having the 'right of way' from the property of the Respondents, bearing Survey No.49/3A and 49/3C, situate at Village Vadgaon Khurd, Taluka Haveli, Dist. Pune. As the Respondents-Plaintiffs were obstructing to the said 'right of way', they filed a Suit against the Respondents before the Mamlatdar's Court, under Section 5(2) of the Mamlatdars' Courts Act (2 of 1906). The said Suit was allowed and the Mamlatdar was pleased to direct the Respondents that the road may be made clear on the East-West border of the lands bearing Survey Nos.49/3A and 49/3C. The said order was challenged by the Respondents by preferring Revision Application before the Sub-Divisional Officer. The Sub-Divisional Officer dismissed the same, thereby confirming the order of the Mamlatdar. However, during the pendency of the Revision Application, the Respondents filed this Special Civil Suit No.1246 of 2016 before the Trial Court, restraining the Petitioners from causing obstruction to the possession of the Respondents in their lands and also from raising this 'right of way'. Along with the Suit, Respondents also filed an application for interim injunction and the said application came to be allowed by the Trial Court, which order is confirmed by the Appellate Court.

4. While challenging this impugned order, three-fold submissions are advanced by learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners. In the first place, it is submitted that, the Suit itself was not maintainable, in view of the concurrent orders passed by the Mamlatdar and the Sub-Divisional Officer, upholding the 'right of way' of the Petitioners. Secondly, it is submitted that, the finding of the fact recorded by these two Courts below, i.e. Mamlatdar and Sub-Divisional Officer, which Courts are though of limited jurisdiction, they were binding on the Civil Court, in view of the Explanation-VIII to Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The third contention is that, if the Petitioners are using this 'right of way' since last several years, Respondents cannot restrain the Petitioners from doing so and hence, the concurrent finding of fact recorded by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court needs to be quashed and set aside.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the Respondents has supported the order of the Trial Court by submitting that, both the Courts below have appreciated the material on record in its proper perspective and hence, this Court should be slow in setting aside such concurrent finding of fact, without any perversity being shown therein. Learned counsel for the Respondents has also pointed out the fact that the Petitioners are conspicuously silent about the availability of alternate road and has relied upon the affidavit of Respondent No.1 to show that, there is an alternate road available to the Petitioners as an access to their property and, therefore, as rightly held by both the Courts below, Petitioners cannot create this new 'right of way' on the basis of the orders passed by the Mamlatdar and the Sub-Divisional Officer.

6. At the outset itself, it has to be stated that, as the entire case is based on the factual finding, once such factual finding is arrived at by the Trial C