JUDGMENT 1. 1. This is defendant's second appeal. Respondents No. 4 to 7 have been served but no body appears on their behalf nor they are present in person. 2. I have gone through the judgments of the two courts below as also the record of the case. The present suit was filed for a mandatory injunction and for an order of demolition so that the plaintiffs could have a clear right of way of 6 feet. The suit was contested. The trial court, after framing issues and recording evidence, passed the following decree: HINDI MATTER 374841 3. The first appellate court confirmed the said decree. Hence this second appeal. 4. learned Counsel for the appellant has only argued before me that he had constructed his house on Plot No. 2 Chabutara which was his own property, and the learned trial court had ordered for demolition of his house on plot No. 2 as well. He has taken me to the evidence led by the parties where in it has come on record that defendant Nos. 2 to 5 also made constructions on the left side of gate on plot No. 6 which has also resulted in reducing the width of the passage. 5. Therefore, maintaining the decree of the trial court that the plaintiffs are entitled to have a 6 feet wide passage, I think in the interest of justice to modify the decree of the trial court only to the extent that defendant Nos. 2 to 5 shall also remove the portion of the Chabutara No. 6 so as to leave a clear 6 feet passage from every corner of Plot No. 7 in addition to remove the portion of plot No. 7, as has been ordered by the trial court. 6. In the result, this appeal is, therefore, partly allowed, the judgment and decree passed by the courts below are modified to the extent indicated above. The parties are left to bear their own costs.Appeal partly allowed. *******