Judgment:
M.C. Jain, Actg, C.J.
1. This revision is directed against the order dated July 21, 1988 passed by the Additional District Judge, Chittorgarh, whereby he allowed the Plaintiffs' appeal against the order of the Munsiff date 9.3.87 whereby the learned Munsiff rejected the plaintiffs application under Order 39 1 and Rules 2 C.P.C.
2. The dispute relates to the plaintiffs' right of way fields Nos. 31, 32,33,35,36, 37 and 39 to their field No. 11. The plaintiffs claim a right to this filed which they had purchased. The trial court found no prima facie case norany balance of convenience or irreparable injury in favour of the plaintiffs so the plaintiffs' application for grant of temporary injunction was rejected. However, the first appellate court found that there exists a prima-facie case in favour of the plaintiffs.
3. I need not enter into the merits of the prima facie case of the plaintiffs. What is material for the right decision of the application for grant of temporary injunction is as to whether the plaintiffs have made out the other essential requirements for grant of temporary injection, namely, balance of convenience and irrepairable injury. It may be slated that the plaintiffs own fields Nos. 40,47,50 and 10. The Commissioner has shown (hat wheat and Methi was standing in field No. 50 of the plaintiffs and the other two fields bearing No. 10 and 11 are lying pad at. The plaintiffs have not set up their case that their right of way to field No. 50 is through the defendant's fields and, thereafter through field No. 11 they enter field No. 10 and 50,. In the absence of such a case it can be taken that there is a right of way to field No. 50 and through field No. 50 the plaintiffs can enter their fields No. 10 and 11. In such a situation, the plaintiffs would not suffer any irreparable injury not it can be said that there is a balance of convenience in their favour. These two essential requirements for the grant of temporary injunction are not satisfied in the present case, and as such, on this ground alone, this revision petition deserves to be allowed and the impugned order deserves to be set aside.
4. Accordingly, this revision petition is allowed, the order of the learned Additional District Judge dated July 21,1988 is set aside and the order of the learned Munsiff is restored and the plaintiff's application for grant of temporary injunction is dismissed.
5. The partiesshall bear their own costs.
It may be stated that any observation made above, would not in any way effect the merits of the case.