The ownership of the land and the absence of a recorded way in the revenue records influenced the court's decision to dismiss the petitioner's appeal.

ORDER

1. This Civil Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 08.09.2015 passed by learned Sessions Judge No.20, Headquarter Chomu, Jaipur Metropolitan whereby Civil Misc. Appeal Nos.14/2013, 15/2013 were allowed & Civil Misc. Appeal No.28/2013 was dismissed and against the order dated 10.10.2013 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Division) & Metropolitan Magistrate No.25, Jaipur Metropolitan in application for temporary injunction Nos.162/2010, 105/2011, 93/2013 whereby restrained the respondents for maintaining status quo regarding the land in question and dismissed the application for ad-interim mandatory injunction.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner had filed a suit for perpetual injunction against the respondents in which petitioner had also filed an application for temporary injunction. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that respondent Nos.1 and 2 had filed reply of temporary injunction application before the trial court. Trial court vide order dated 27.10.2010 dismissed the application filed by the petitioner regarding temporary injunction. Petitioner had preferred an appeal on 03.11.2010 in between respondents had raised the illegal construction, so, petitioner had filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC before the appellate court. Appellate court vide order dated 31.05.2011 remanded the case to the trial court for deciding afresh in the light of documents filed by the petitioner. Meanwhile, petitioner had also filed an application for interim mandatory injunction before the trial court for restoring the previous position. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that petitioner had filed an application before the trial court for restraining the respondents not to raise any construction in the disputed way. Trial court vide order dated 10.10.2013 partly allowed the application filed by the petitioner and restrained the respondents to maintain the status quo and not to change the situation. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that respondents had filed an appeal of the said order and petitioner had also filed an appeal against the dismissal of interim mandatory injunction before the appellate court. Appellate court vide order dated 08.09.2015 dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and allowed the appeal filed by the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that impugned order & judgment passed by learned court below are bad, perverse and against the provisions of law. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that learned appellate court wrongly dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that learned appellate court wrongly considered the fact that the sale deed made by the petitioner had a road at 2 Kms. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that learned appellate court wrongly considered the fact that the petitioner had alternative way as per the commissioner report. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that this fact was not taken as a defence by the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that due to construction of the respondents, petitioner could not use his plot. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that while deciding the appeal, appellate court had decided the matter finally. So, order of the appellate court be set aside and interim mandatory injunction be issued in favour of the petitioner and restored the position of the way that was exists at the time of filing of the suit.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the following judgments : (1) Nizamuddin Vs. The Board of Revenue & Ors. reported in 1991 (1) RLR 84; (2) State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Smt. Sohani Devi & Ors. reported in 1998 DNJ Raj. 790; (3) Ratan Lal Acharya Vs. Smt. Parwati Bai & Ors. reported in 2000 DNJ Raj. 514 and (4) Mohd. Mehtab