The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of a prima facie case for granting interim mandatory injunction and the importance of preserving the status as on the date of the suit.

JUDGMENT :

Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J.

The present petition is maintained by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the judgment dated 27.04.2019, passed by the learned Additional District Judge-I, Mandi, H.P. (Camp at Sundernagar) in Civil Misc. Appeal No.67/2018, affirming the order dated 25.10.2018, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Court No.1, Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P. in CMA No.143-VI/2018 in Civil Suit No.67-I of 2018, with a prayer to set aside the impugned judgments and order and to allow the present petition.

2. Briefly stating the facts giving rise to the present petition are that;

the respondents, who were the appellants before the learned Trial Court below (hereinafter to be called as "the respondents") had filed a suit against the respondent, (hereinafter to be called as "the petitioner") for declaration, injunction and easement alleging that the respondent and one Sh. Banshi had purchased land in dispute in the present lis, vide common sale deed dated 15.09.2005, comprised in Khata Khatauni No.327/368, kitas 6, measuring 12-15-06 bighas to the extent of 0-12-2 bigha, situated in Mohal Mahadev/10, Tehsil Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P. It has been alleged that all the Vendees had agreed to leave one meter wide common passage from the main public path upto the end of their plot (s). They divided this land between themselves amicably and occupied their plots leaving one meter common passage from eastern side of the plot upto its end. Further, that first plot was occupied by one Banshi Lal, second plot was taken by Hosiar Chand and thereafter further occupied by Bimla and Ashok Kumar. Banshi has constructed residential house over his plot bearing Khasra No.1311/1, and he has sold his residential house on 18.04.2017 to the petitioner and on 15.7.2017, without the consent and permission of the respondents, the present petitioner has unlawfully blocked the said path on its front by constructing a wall and has left no passage to the plots of the respondents herein. The respondents have approached the Local Panchayat, but all in vain. The respondents have also filed application for stay against the respondents. The petitioner has averred in the written statement filed before the learned Court below that she has purchased the house existing over Khasra No.1822/1345 from one Banshi, which was stated to be free from all encumbrances. It has been averred that the suit land has been partitioned finally by the order of the A.C., Ist Grade, Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P., dated 15.06.2016 and mutation No.2528, dated 21.11.2016, has been attested and the partition order do not provide any such path and Banshi now has joined his hands with the respondents in order to cause loss to the petitioner and the wall has been constructed in order to protect her property from stray animals and the intruders. It has been alleged that no finger has been raised by the respondents when the said house was constructed. The path, as claimed by the respondents, will unnecessarily create obstructions and hindrances in the privacy of the petitioner. The respondents are enjoying the right of way to their plots from the other side and have transported the construction material through the said path, as Hoshiar Chand has also constructed his house. The learned Trial Court passed order of mandatory injunction in favour of the respondents vide order dated 25.10.2018, and such order was challenged by the petitioner by filing appeal, but the same was dismissed vide judgment dated 27.04.2019 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-I, Mandi, H.P..

3. It has been alleged that the judgment and order passed by both the learned Courts below are both against law and facts on record, which have been passed after ignoring the true facts of the case and provisions of order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, therefore, it has been prayed that the judgment and order under challenge are liable to be set a