J U D G M E N T

Respondents in A.S. No.60 of 2012 of the Sub Court, Muvattupuzha challenge the order dated 09.04.2013 on I.A.

No.2095 of 2012.

2. Dispute concerns the right of user of the plaint C schedule. Respondents claimed that plaint A and B schedules belonged to them as per Exts.A1 and A2 and that they have acquired right of easement by prescription over the plaint C schedule. Trial court found that the 1st respondent has not completed user for 20 years while the 2nd respondent has completed the said period but ultimately found against the claim of respondents and non-suited them for various reasons including lack of pleading regarding right of easement claimed.

3. Respondents filed A.S. No.60 of 2012. In that appeal they filed I.A. No.2095 of 2012 for an order of injunction to restrain the appellants from causing obstruction to their using the plaint C schedule.

4. The learned Sub Judge found a prima facie case in favour of the respondents and granted injunction as prayed for.

That order is under challenge.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that observations made by the learned Sub Judge in page 5 of the impugned order that the appellants have only a right of way thro