JUDGMENT :

REKHA BORANA, J.

1. The matter comes up on an application under Order 39 Rule 4 of Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) preferred on behalf of respondent No. 1 for vacation of the interim order dated 29.08.2018 whereby status quo as it existed on the said date was directed to be maintained. It has been submitted in the application that the interim order is being flouted by the appellants and therefore, the same be vacated.

2. Although the matter has been listed for hearing/orders on the stay petition, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the appeal itself has been heard finally.

3. The present second appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 24.01.2018 passed by the Additional District Judge, Merta in Civil Appeal No. 141/2015 reversing the judgment and decree dated 26.09.2013 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Merta in regular suit No. 34/2008 whereby the suit for declaration and permanent injunction as preferred by the plaintiffs had been decreed.

4. The present appeal was admitted on 29.08.2018 and the following substantial questions of law were framed:

“(i) Whether the First Appellate Court was justified in coming to the conclusion that the plaintiffs have not sought any relief pertaining to declaration of easementary right and, therefore, civil court had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter?

(ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the suit filed by the appellants is triable by the Civil Court?

(iii) Whether the First Appellate Court was justified in reversing the decree passed by the trial court without dealing with any other issue?”

5. Before entering into an analysis on the questions of law as framed, a brief of the facts is essential.

6. A representative suit for declaration and injunction was preferred by the Aam Janta of Village-Butati with the following prayer:

^^8- ;g gSa fd oknhx.k dh ÁkFkZuk gSa fd fMØh cgd oknhx.k fo:) Áfroknhx.k fuEufyf[kr rjhds ls lkfnj QjekbZ tkos dh%&

¼1½ ;g gS fd ?kks"k.kk dh fMØh lkfnj QjekbZ tkosa dh [kljk uEcj 1073 jdck 2 fc?kk [kljk uEcj 1074 jdck 10 fc?kk 11 fcLok xSjeqedhu ukMh o vaxksj dh lkoZtfud vke turk cqVkVh dh ?kksf"kr dh tkos rFkk ;g Hkh ?kksf"kr fd;k tkos dh [kljk uEcj 1073 xSjeqedhu ukMh lkoZtfud ukMh gS ftldks vke turk cqVkVh ds ikuh ihus o i'kq/ku ds ikuh ihus dk dke esa ysus dk vf/kdkj gS rFkk [kljk uEcj 1074 jdCkk 10 fc?kk 11 fcLok lkoZtfud vaxkSj dh Hkqfe ?kksf"kr dh tkos tks [kljk uEcj 1073 dk dSpesaV ,sjh;k ?kksf"kr fd;k tkosA rFkk vke turk dks vius i'kq/ku o vU; tho dks pjus o pjkus dk ?kksf"kr fd;k tkosA

¼2½ dh jktLo jsdMZ dks nqjLr djus dh fMØh lkfnj QjekbZ tkos dh [kljk uEcj 1073 jdck 2 fc?kk xSjeqedhu ukMh jktdh; Hkqfe [krkSuh esa ntZ dh tkos o [kljk uEcj 1074 jdck 10 fc?kk 11 fcLok Hkqfe xSjeqedhu vaxkSj dh Hkqfe jktdh; Hkqfe [krkSuh esa ntZ dh tkosA

¼3½ ;g gS fd LFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk dh fMØh lkfnj QjekbZ tkos dh [kljk uEcj 1073 jdck 2 fc?kk [kljk uEcj 1074 jdck 10 fc?kk 11 fcLok dks Áfroknh uEcj ,d fdlh dks Hkh cSpku] gLrkarj.k] jgu] c['kh'k vknh ugha djsa uk fdlh vU; ls djkosa rFkk Áfroknh la[;k 2 ls 6 jktLo jsdMZ dh fLFkrh dks ;Fkkor cuk;s j[ksa rFkk Áfroknhx.k ekSds dh fLFkfr dks ;Fkkor cuk;s j[ksa rFkk Áfroknh uEcj uEcj ,d fdlh Hkh laLFkk] foRrh; laLFkk ls _.k vknh mDr Hkqfe ij ugha ysosa uk vU; ls fyjokosaA

¼4½ ;g gS fd bl okn dk [kpkZ o gtkZ oknh dks Áfroknh uEcj ,d ls fnyk;k tkosA vU; ÁkFkZuk tks oknhx.k ds i{k esa mfpr Árhr gks oks oknhx.k ds i{k esa Lohdkj QjekbZ tkosA**

7. On basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court initially framed as many as 6 issues and subsequently, issue no. 6A regarding jurisdiction of the Court was framed as under:

^^vk;k ÁLrqr okn dks lquokbZ dk {ks=kf/kdkj bl U;k;y; dks ugha gksdj jktLo U;k;ky; dks gSA**

8. Learned trial Court proceeded on to decide issue no. 6A in favour of the plaintiffs holding the suit to be maintainable before the Civil Court and further, while deciding other relevant issues in favour of the plaintiffs, decreed the suit.

9. In the ap