The court upheld the trial Court's injunction order, emphasizing the necessity of protecting the plaintiff's easement rights pending trial, while confirming the existence of the pathway.

ORAL ORDER

Aggrieved by the order passed in I.A.No.III filed by the plaintiff under Order 94 (c) and (e) read with Section 151 of CPC in O.S.No.160/2018 dated 10.07.2019 by the Additional Civil Judge & JMFC, Kunigal, the petitioner/ defendant is before this Court.

2. The respondent herein who is the plaintiff had filed the suit seeking declaration that the plaintiff has got right of easement of prescription to use 'B' Schedule pathway to reach his residential house from Main Road and for consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his agent, his henchman, servant or anybody acting on his behalf obstructing the plaintiff from using the 'B' Scheduled Pathway to reach his residential house from Main Road in any manner. In the suit, the plaintiff had come up with two applications i.e., I.A.Nos.I and III. I.A.No.I is filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC, for grant of temporary injunction restraining the defendant, his agent, his henchman, servant or anybody acting on his behalf, obstructing the plaintiff from using 'B' schedule pathway to reach his residential house from Main Road and further I.A.No.III is filed under 94 (c) and (e) read with Section 151 of CPC, to restrain the defendant from putting up any construction over the suit 'B' schedule property till disposal of the suit.

3. The trial Court by order impugned had allowed both the applications. Against an order granting injunction in I.A.No.I, the defendant had filed M.A.No.18/2019 which came to be dismissed by order dated 26.06.2024 confirming the order passed by the trial Court in I.A.No.I dated 10.07.2019. Against the order passed in I.A.No.III filed under 94 (c) and (e) read with Section 151 of CPC, the defendant is before this Court. The trial Court while allowing the applications had observed that it is the specific case of the plaintiff that he is the absolute owner in possession of 'A' schedule property and he has been using 'B' schedule property as pathway to reach his house. Without having any right, title over the said 'B' schedule property, the defendant is obstructing the plaintiff to use 'B' schedule property and also attempting to put up construction over it.

4. According to the defendant, there is no such pathway as stated in the 'B' schedule property and the defendant has left 09 feet passage in the written statement schedule property for the use of cattle shelter. The trial Court further observed that O.S.No.79 of 2002 is filed by the petitioner herein who is the defendant in the suit against the respondent herein who is the plaintiff in the suit and it has been observed about existence of 12 feet road. Further, the trial Court observed that in the present suit, there is a dispute with regard to existence of pathway towards eastern side of the defendants property i.e., 'B' schedule property. Moreover, the defendant submits that he has left 9 feet passage for his domestic purpose. The trial Court observed that whether there is a existence of road or passage has to be decided only through full fledged trial by obtaining necessary reports. As observed in the previous suit i.e., O.S.No.79/2022 prima-facie it appears about the existence of 12 feet road towards eastern side of defendants property. The documents adduced by the plaintiff reveals that at this stage the plaintiff has made out a prima-facie case. As such, if the injunction order is not granted and if the defendant proceed with the construction over the 'B' schedule property, it may lead to multiplicity of proceedings also cause hurdle to the plaintiff. On the other hand, if the defendant is restrained from any construction in the suit schedule 'B' property, no inconvenience would be caused and accordingly the trial Court had allowed both the applications filed by the plaintiff.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/defendant submits that the trial Court ought not to have passed any order invoking Section 94 (c) and (e) read with 151 CPC. It is submitted t