JUDGMENT

This appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 12.04.2016 passed by learned District Judge, Balasore in Interim Application No. 169 of 2015 arising out of Regular First Appeal No. 282 of 2015.

2. The respondent no. 1 as the plaintiff has filed C.S. No. 246 of 2012 in the Court of Sr. Civil Judge Balasore seeking declaration that the suit land is the only passage for ingress and egress to the main road from her residential plot of land where stands a building and decree of permanent injunction directing the appellants and other respondent nos. 2 to 4 to remove the side fence including the blockage from the suit land.

The suit stood dismissed. The respondent no. 1 thus being non-suited has filed the regular fist appeal as noted above. During pendency of this first appeal, the present respondent no. 1 filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking temporary injunction in a mandatory form directing the appellant and respondent no. 2 to 4 to remove blockade from the suit land so as to make it fit for ingress and egress to her house and to maintain status-quo in so far as said passage is concerned till disposal of the appeal.

3. Learned District Judge after hearing the parties has passed the following orders:-

“The O.Ps. are directed to remove the blockage over the suit passage and to facilitate the petitioner for her ingress and egress to the public road from her residential house and after removal of such blockage, both the parties are directed to maintain status-quo over the suit passage till the final disposal of this appeal. If the O.P. would not remove the blockage forthwith, then the petitioner may take the assistance of local police for implementation of the order.”

This order is now under challenge here in this appeal.

4. For the sake of convenience in order to avoid confusion and bring in clarity, the parties hereinafter are being called for their position as assigned in the trial Court.

5. In order to appreciate the matter, the essential rival case of the parties which is required to be kept in view may be stated.

The case of the plaintiff is that the suit land initially stood recorded in the name of one Panu Barik which subsequently came to the hands of Madan and Netra. Later upon partition of said property and their other properties, the suit land was come to be allotted in the share of Netra. Netra then sold Ac. 0.05 decimals towards south of said plot of land to one Prahallad and Ratnakar and they came to possess the same being so delivered with. It is stated that they again sold the suit land of Ac. 0.05 decimals to defendant no. 1 and 2 and who also possessed the same. Next, it is stated that after death of Netra, his son Mayadhar being absolute owner remained in possession of rest of the area of that Ac. 0.14 decimals. It is pleaded that Mayadhar while in possession had proposed defendant no. 1 and 2 to purchase the said land, but as they could not arrange the money, it was sold to plaintiff no. 1 and her husband who purchased Ac. 0.07 decimals of land. They purchased said Ac. 0.07 decimals of land with the assurance that they would also purchase further Ac. 0.07 decimals. It is stated that during discussion for the said transaction, it had been the agreement that the plaintiff would be using said land as road for ingress and egress from her purchased property. So, with this condition, the plaintiff said to have gone ahead with the purchase Ac. 0.07 decimals towards south-west of land measuring Ac. 0.14 decimals and she accordingly began to possess the same. It is further stated that on that very day, defendant no. 2 purchased Ac. 0.07 decimals towards south-east from that area Ac. 0.14 decimals and took possession. The plaintiff then constructed her house over the purchased land with due permission and plan being approved by the local authority and then used the passage as decided. It is alleged that legal heirs of Madan in order