This matter is listed for admission and I have heard the

learned counsel for the petitioners.

The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff before

the Trial Court while seeking the relief of declaration to declare

that he has got the right of easement of necessity over the suit

schedule road and for the consequential relief is that, except

the suit schedule said 30 feet road, he has no access to reach

his house for better enjoyment and he has got right of

easement of necessity over the suit schedule road.

3.

The defendants also filed the written statement and

apart from that, the defendants also filed an application under

Order 7, Rule 11(a), (d) and (f) read with Sections 9 and 151

of CPC read with Section 216 of Karnataka Municipalities Act,

1964 contending that the plaintiff is having an alternative road.

When such being the case, the plaintiff cannot seek for the

- 3 -

relief of easementary right and no cause of action arises for the

suit and the suit itself is not tenable and not maintainable in

view of the bar created by Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964.

It is also contended that the plaintiff has sought for the relief of

permanent injunction which cannot be granted