IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ****

CR-1988-2026 Date of decision: 26.02.2026 Bani Ram . . . . Petitioner Vs.

Pooja and others . . . . Respondents ****

CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA ****

Present: - Dr. A.S. Sandhu, Advocate, for the petitioner.

****

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

The present revision petition has been filed by the plaintiff assailing the order dated 03.10.2025 (Annexure P1) passed by the learned trial Court, whereby his application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC seeking temporary injunction was dismissed, as well as the appellate order dated 07.01.2026 (Annexure P2) passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sirsa affirming the said decision.

2. The petitioner instituted a suit for declaration and permanent injunction claiming that in a settlement between the parties, a passage measuring 3 karam in width had been provided to enable him to access his land comprised in Rectangle No.42 Khasra No.3 through the northern side of Khasra Nos.1 and 2, which had fallen to the share of the defendants. It is contended that despite existence of such passage at the spot, both Courts below failed to protect the petitioner’s right by way of temporary injunction.

3. This Court has considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and has perused the impugned orders.

4. The Appellate Court, while affirming the order of the trial Court, examined the entire revenue history and the chain of title and recorded a categorical finding that the petitioner had failed to establish even a prima facie existence of the alleged passage. The Appellate Court noticed that the aks-shijra relied upon by the petitioner did not depict any such passage. It was further observed that the petitioner had taken inconsistent pleas by simultaneously asserting existence of an established passage and claiming a right of way on the basis of easement of necessity.

5. The reasoning recorded by the Courts below does not suffer from any illegality.

6. The grant of temporary injunction is governed by the well settled triad of prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury. In disputes concerning easementary rights, the existence, nature, and extent of the alleged right ordinarily require adjudication on the basis of evidence and cannot be presumed merely on assertion.

7. In the present case, the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate any documentary material indicating existence of the alleged passage. On the contrary, the aks-shijra relied upon by him does not support his plea. In the absence of prima facie proof regarding existence of a defined passage, the Courts below were justified in declining interim protection.

8. Equally significant is the contradictory stand adopted by the petitioner. A claim based on an existing passage is distinct from a claim of easement of necessity. The latter arises only upon proof that the dominant tenement has no other reasonable access. Such determination necessarily involves evidence regarding location, availability of alternative access, and circumstances of severance of holdings. These matters cannot be conclusively determined at the interlocutory stage.

9. Once the petitioner failed to establish a prima facie right, the balance of convenience could not be said to tilt in his favour, particularly when grant of injunction would have resulted in restraining the recorded owners from using their property without clear proof of the petitioner’s entitlement. Likewise, absence of interim injunction does not cause irreparable injury, as the alleged easementary right, if ultimately proved, can be enforced through final adjudication.

10. It is equally well settled that revisional jurisdiction against interlocutory orders refusing temporary injunction is limited to cases of patent illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error. The impugned orders reflect a plausible and reasoned exercise of judicial discretion and do not warrant interference.

11. Consequently, finding no merit in the p