The Appellate Court cannot, in an appeal against an interim order, appoint a commissioner to collect evidence on merits or pre-emptively decide factual disputes that are explicitly reserved for full trial, as this constitutes an unwarranted expansion of appellate jurisdiction and potential prejudice to the trial proceedings.

Whether approved for reporting?¹Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

Romesh Verma, Judge.

The present petition arises out of the judgment as passed by learned District Judge, Bilaspur in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 22/14 of 2022 dated 20.06.2025, whereby the appeal preferred by the present respondents/plaintiffs was decided by directing the trial Court to appoint a commission to see whether the defendants exceeded their right by making railing, in such a manner so as to obstruct the passage made to the house of the plaintiffs.

2. The facts of the case are that the plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration to the effect that they are entitled to get their half share partitioned from the defendants ifn the suit land which is in totality measures 13 bighas situated in Village Panyala, Tehsil Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur. In addition, a decree of permanent prohibitory injunctionu has also been prayed for by restraining the defendants from raising construction of any kind over any part of the suit land and particularly from installing gate over the road which leads from the house of the plaintiffs to the main road through courtyard of defendants. In alternative, decree for mandatory injunction has been prayed for, seeking directions against the defendants to remove the obstruction or gate if installed on the aforesaid road. It is the case of the plaintiff that they have constructed a road to their house on the suit land which connects the house to main road. The said road was constructed by the plaintiffs with the consent of the defendants. That a compromise was effected between the parties before the Lok Adalat and the same was exhibited as Ex. PX. The case of the plaintiffs is that the defendants despite entering into the compromise obstructed the right of user of road of the plaintiffs through the suit land and threatened to construct a gate in such a manner so as to deny the plaintiffs’ righft to ply vehicles upto their house.

3. Along with the suit, an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 ouf the CPC was also preferred by the plaintiffs/respondents.

4. The suit was contested by the defendants/petitioners by filing written statement raising various preliminary objections. On merits, the averments made in the plaint have been refuted and denied. The allegations of obstruction to the user of path available to the house of the plaintiff was specifically denied. It is the case of the defendant that the plaintiffs have got no right or title to claim passage through the court yard of the house of the defendants. The defendants have prayed for dismissal of the suit as filed by the plaintiff.

5. The defendants contested the the application filed by the plaintiffs under the provisions of Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC. The defendants also filed an application under Order 39, Rule 4 of the CPC for the vacation of the interim injunction as passed by the learned trial Court. f

6. Learned trial Court vide its order dated 5.8.2022, decided the both the aforesaid applications. The relevant portion thereof reads as unduer:-

“In view of the aforesaid discussion and considering the fact that the suit land is jointly owned by the parties, the application is only partly allowed to the extent that the respondents may install a gate to protect their property but with a condition not to obstruct in any way the access to the house of the applicants. Regarding the remainder of the suit land, the parties are directed to maintain status quo qua nature, possession and construction. It is further clarified that the gate, if installed, shall not be locked without the consent of the applicants and if the respondents wish to lock the gate then they shall provide a duplicate key of the same to the applicants.”

7. It was ordered by the learned trial Court vide order dated 5.8.2022 that the defendants may install a gate to protect their property but with a condition not to obstruct in any way the access to the house of the