The court upheld the injunction order to prevent interference with the plaintiff's easementary rights, ruling that the blockade in the gali would cause inconvenience and create sanitary problems.

1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The plaintiff-respondents filed a suit for injunction against the defendant-petitioners with the allegations that there exists a 3 ft. wide gali between their houses and that the said gali was being used by them to flow the discharge water as also the rainy water and also to open the windows for air and light. But the petitioners were threatening to interfere with their easementary rights by construction or placing obstructions on the land of the gali. Alongwith the plaint, an application under O.39 R.1 & 2 CPC was also filed by the plaintiff-respondents. u/s.115, Civil Procedure Code, for quashing the order dated 20.3.99 passed by D.J., Kota in C.M.A. No. 8/99.

3. After hearing learned counsel for the parties on such application, the learned trial court passed an order on 14.12.1998, in the following manner: HINDI MATTER 361752 A

4. On an appeal having been preferred by the plaintiff-respondents before the District Judge, Kota, the parties were heard at length. After considering their arguments and perusal of the material including the report of the Commissioner as placed before him, the learned Distt. Judge, modified the order of the learned trial Court in the following manner: HINDI MATTER B

5. Now it has been urged before me on behalf of the defendant- petitioners that the order of mandatory injunction, as it has been made by the learned Distt. Judge was oppressive, inconvenient and interferes with the right of the defendant-petitioners of peaceful enjoyment of their property.

6. I have gone through the orders of the Courts-below. The learned trial Court had dealt with the relevant requirements for issuing an injunction order in sufficient details. At this stage, the learned District Judge, dealt with the controversy between the parties in sufficient details and came to the conclusion that a prima-facie case did exist in favour of the plaintiffs that a blockade in the gali would create great inconvenience to them and also in the flow the discharge water and also of the rainy water besides creating sanitary problems. In his discretion, the learned Distt. Judge, thought it proper to modify the order in a way which does not cause inconvenience or hardship to either party. He has directed an iron cattle catcher be placed so that the animal could not enter into the gali and at the same time the discharge water and rainy water may also flow through it without any interruption.

7. In my opinion, the learned Distt. Judge, has not exceeded his jurisdiction in exercising his discretionary powers. This Court would not like to substitute its own discretion to that of the Courts below while exercising its revisional powers under Section 115 CPC. The impugned order does not suffer from any jurisdictional error and calls for no interference by this Court. The revision petition is dismissed.Revision Dismissed.

*******