The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of Section 22 of the Indian Easements Act, 1882 and its influence on the court's decision regarding the existence and use of the disputed way.

JUDGMENT

R.G.AVACHAT - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally, by consent of the parties.

2. The challenge in this writ petition is to the judgment and order dated 07.12.2019, passed by the District Judge-1, Sangamner, in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 6 of 2018.

3. The petitioner is the original defendant in Regular Civil Suit No. 1064 of 2017 before the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Sangamner. The said suit has been filed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 against the petitioner and other respondents. The suit is for the relief of declaration that there exists a way (prescribed by letters A, B, C and D in plaint map) (for short 'the disputed way'), that goes along Southern side bandh of the lands Gut No. 230/1 and 230/2. The consequential relief of injunction was also prayed for restraining the petitioner and respondent Nos. 6 to 10, 16 and 17 herein (i.e. defendant Nos. 1 to 8), from obstructing respondent Nos. 1 to 5 (plaintiffs) from using the suit way.

4. The petitioner and the contesting respondents appeared in the suit and filed a counter claim. They admitted existence of the suit way. It is, however, their case that the suit way has been used by the petitioner and other respondents (defendants and plaintiffs) to negotiate with their lands. It is their further case that lands Gut Nos. 199 and 200, belonging to the petitioner and respondent Nos. 1 and 3 (defendant Nos. 1 to 3), are situated to the South of the respondent Nos. 1 to 5's (plaintiffs') land Gut No. 231. There exists a way (described with letter E-F in the sketch accompanying the counter claim). It goes through the land Gut No. 231 belonging to respondent Nos. 1 to 5 (plaintiffs). The disputed way has been used by the petitioner and respondent Nos. 16 and 17 (original defendant Nos. 1 to 3) for long, as of necessity. The respondent Nos. 1 to 5 have blocked/obstructed the disputed way. It was therefore prayed in the counter claim that it be declared that the disputed way has been in existence for long and the petitioner and respondent Nos. 16 and 17 (original defendant Nos. 1 to 3) have been using the same. The consequential relief of injunction, restraining the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 (plaintiffs) from obstructing the petitioner and the respondent Nos. 16 and 17 from making use of the disputed way has been asked for. In the suit, the plaintiffs and defendant Nos. 1 to 3, moved applications Exh-5 and Exh. 25 for interim injunction against each other. The trial Court vide its order dated 15.01.2018, rejected application Exh-5 moved by the plaintiffs (respondent Nos. 1 to 5 herein) and allowed Exh-25 and restrained the plaintiffs (respondent Nos. 1 to 5 herein) from obstructing the petitioner and respondent Nos. 16 and 17 (defendant Nos. 1 to 3) from making use of the disputed way. The respondent Nos. 1 to 5 (original plaintiffs), therefore, preferred Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2018 before the learned District Judge-1, Sangamner. The learned District Judge-1, Sangamner, allowed the appeal and set aside the order of rejection of application Exh-5 passed by the trial Court. It allowed the application Exh-5 and restrained the respondents (defendant Nos. 1 to 3) from interfering with the respondent Nos. 1 to 5's (original plaintiffs) user of the suit way. The application Exh. 25 moved by the petitioner and respondent Nos. 16 and 17 (defendant Nos. 1 to 3) came to be rejected, setting aside the order passed by the trial Court allowing the said application. The original defendant No. 2 has therefore preferred the present writ petition.

5. From the submissions advanced, it does appear that there is no challenge to the order allowing application Exh. 5. The petitioner and respondent Nos. 16 and 17 (original defendant Nos. 1 to 3) admitted existence of the suit way and denied to have ever obstructed the respondents (original plaintiffs) from using of the suit way. As such, the issue involved in this writ petition is confined to the dispute as to the ex