JUDGMENT :

1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 4th November, 2019 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 5th Court, Barasat in Misc. Appeal no. 107 of 2018 present application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred. By the impugned order, the court below has reversed the order dated 28.8.2018 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) 1st Court at Barasat in Title Suit no. 511 of 2017.

2. The opposite parties as plaintiffs jointly filed Title Suit no. 511 of 2017 before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) 1st Court at Barasat against the petitioner herein inter alia praying decree for declaration that the petitioner has no right, title and interest to make any construction in or around any portion of the G schedule property which is shown as passage and also for mandatory injunction directing the petitioner to remove western side fencing and eastern side pucca wall over the G schedule property and restore the original position of the alleged 12 feet common passage leading from west to east referred to in G schedule property and also for permanent injunction.

3. The opposite party as plaintiff in the said suit alleged that they have respectively become owners of the property as described in “A” schedule to “D” schedule of the plaint and the petitioner is the owner of E schedule and F schedule to the plaint and G schedule alleged to be a 12 feet wide common passage adjacent to the Bidhannagar Municipal Corporation main road known as Super Market Road. The dispute herein is over the so called common passage which appeared to be 6 feet wide in the plan annexed to the deed of the petitioner but other subsequent purchasers including the opposite party herein after purchase agreed with the petitioner that they will construct respective building in the property leaving vacant 3 ft in each plot, with the object to make width of the so called 6 ft wide common passage to 12 ft. Accordingly, the said common passage was expanded to 12 ft. The opposite parties alleged in their plaint, that the petitioner herein/defendant has obstructed the said common passage by setting up Bamboo fencing and dismantling the surface of the alleged 12 ft wide common passage and blocked eastern side thereby making pucca construction but the water connection through the passage is still there. Petitioner has no right to block the same but ignoring the opposite parties protest, the petitioner obstructed the said so called common passage. Along with the suit the opposite parties also filed an injunction application praying for restraining the petitioner herein and her men and agents from changing nature and character of the property and to make any construction on any portion of E and F schedule property by encroaching G schedule property.

4. Upon contested hearing the learned trial judge by its order dated 28.8.2018 was pleased to reject the prayer for injunction. Being aggrieved by the said order, the plaintiff/opposite party herein preferred Misc. appeal no 107 of 2018 and the Appellate court reversed the said order.

5. Mr. Ghosh on behalf of the petitioner submits that learned appellate court upon total misconception of fact and law and without appreciating the position of the plots of land and so called common passage by its judgment and order dated 4th November, 2019 has been pleased to allow the Misc. appeal. He further submits that the order of the appellate court reveals that it is bereft of any logic and reasons assigned are baseless. He has not at all considered and applied his mind to the facts and circumstances of the case, rather mechanically passed the said order which is illegal on its face. The learned appellate court has acted illegally and with material irregularity in the exercise of his jurisdiction by allowing appeal, which in the facts of the case, deserves dismissal having no merits.

6. He further submits that learned court below has not considered the sketch map which ev