JUDGMENT

Dated this the 12 th day of January, 2022 Judgment in CMA 21/2015 dated 18.06.2021 on the file of the Sub Court, Nedumangad is under challenge in this Original Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Petitioners herein are the respondents/defendants in O.S.794/2014 pending the before the above court.

2. Heard both sides.,

3. To be on the facts of this case, the plaintiff in the above suit filed a suit for an injunction claiming right of easement by prescription over C schedule pathway, part of B Schedule owned by the defendants. An interim injunction application was filed as

I.A.No.3903/2014 seeking a temporary injunction restraining the defendants/respondents from obstructing the C schedule. Interim injunction without notice has been granted and a Commissioner was deputed and the Commissioner visited the property on the date of the suit itself and specifically reported the existence of plaint C schedule pathway, as evident from the Commission report produced as Ext.P6. In Ext.P6 Commission report, the Commissioner reported that C Schedule was in existence, having a width of 7 feet and length of 100 feet and no other way available to the plaintiff to have access into plaint A schedule property.

4. According to the plaintiff, after the visit of the Commissioner, in violation of the prohibitory injunction, the petitioners herein obstructed the pathway and now the property of the plaint is land locked. A perusal of the report of the Commissioner would go to show that no other pathway except C schedule was noted as per the Commission report.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners would urge that the identity of the property is in dispute and the courts below granted status quo without identifying the plaint C schedule pathway. In this attempt, the learned counsel given emphasis to another Commission report obtained in a subsequently instituted suit at the instance of the petitioners. It is not in dispute that the said Commission report is one obtained after filing the earlier Commission report in this case. Therefore, the matters noted therein cannot be given emphasis where the plaintiff asserts obstruction in C schedule pathway after filing the earlier commission report. At this juncture, the learned counsel read out subsequent Commission report filed by the same Commissioner produced as Ext.P8 in the present case pointing out the fact that the Commissioner in the second report stated that the direction of the pathway was mistakenly shown in the first report and the same was corrected by filing another report. I could gather such narration in Ext.P8. But in Ext.P8 report also, the Commissioner did not say that the pathway noted in the earlier report is a mistake, rather than a mistake in relation to mentioning of eluka. It is pertinent to note than in Ext.P8 report the Commissioner categorically stated that the way as reported in Ext.P6 was fully blocked in a way the plaint A schedule became land locked. Here, the learned Munsiff as well as the Appellate Court appraised evidence and finally concluded that the petitioners herein obstructed C schedule pathway reported by the Commissioner on the date of the suit, after getting interim order of injunction. This is the context in which, the trial court ordered to restore status quo with a direction to remove the obstruction so as to facilitate use of C schedule by the plaintiff till the disposal of the suit. The learned Sub Judge, who heard CMA 21/2015 also confirmed the said order.

6. In an application filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court has supervisory jurisdiction to look into the perversity and arbitrariness of an order to set it right, but the same shall not extend to the sphere of re-appreciating evidence to have a contra fin