Y. B. BHATT, J. ( 1 ) THE pertinent facts in brief leading to the present revision are as under ( 2 ) THE respondent herein as original applicant filed a proceeding under Section 5 (2) of the Mamlatdars Courts Act 1906 against the present petitioners-original defendants contending that he had a right of way along the northern boundary of the fields of the defendants (Survey Nos. 121 and 123) and that since the defendants were obstructing him in using the said passage he applied for the necessary injunction. This application was decided by the Mamlatdar on the basis of the evidence on the record before him by dismissing the same by his judgment and order dated 28th September 1990 ( 3 ) THE plaintiff respondent therefore challenged the same by filing the revision under Section 23 of the said Act which was heard by the Assistant Collector Banaskantha and who allowed the same by his judgment and order dated 14th February 1992 and issued injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants as prayed for The original defendants have challenged the said order of the Assistant Collector by way of the present revision under Section 115 of CPC. ( 4 ) THE first point required to be considered here is as regards the scope and powers of this Court under Section 115 of CPC to interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the lower court. I do not consider it necessary to enter into a detailed discussion of the case law on this point inasmuch as it is by now well settled that the High Court while exercising its discretionary revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of CPC cannot interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the lower court unless the same are perverse or based on no evidence. On the facts and circumstances of the case I am satisfied that the findings recorded by the Assistant Collector are neither perverse nor can it be said that the same are based on no evidence The impugned judgment gives detailed reasons as to why the Assistant Collector has reversed the order of the Mamlatdar. ( 5 ) ANOTHER aspect of the matter which requires consideration is whether the High Court ought to interfere in proceedings under Section 115 of CPC particularly where the impugned order is one under Section 23 of the Mamlatdars Courts Act. ( 5 ) ANOTHER aspect of the matter which requires consideration is whether the High Court ought to interfere in proceedings under Section 115 of CPC particularly where the impugned order is one under Section 23 of the Mamlatdars Courts Act. Even on this aspect the case law is well settled There are a number of decisions since remote times to the effect that when the High Court entertains a revision arising from a judgment in revision passed by the Collector under Section 23 of the said Act the High Court ought not to interfere by reversing findings of fact recorded by the Collector. Where proceedings arise from the revisional order under Section 23 of the said Act the High Court in fact ought not even to enter into questions of fact. Some of such decisions may be noted viz. 22 BLR p. 764 ILR 21 Bombay p. 732 and 39 Indian Cases p. 424. ( 6 ) EVEN otherwise on the facts and in the circumstances of the case I am satisfied that the impugned judgment causes no prejudice to the defendants. It must be noted that it is well settled that the proceeding under Section 5 of the said Act is a summary proceeding the nature of which does not decide substantive rights of parties in respect of the lands in question. The only scope of the present proceeding initiated by plaintiff was to seek an injunction against the defendants from obstructing his right of way. When such an injunction is granted it does not affect the substantive right of the defendants. Under the circumstances I am satisfied that the order of the Assistant Collector if allowed to stand would not occasion a failure of justice nor would it cause irreparable injury to the defendants. Therefore the impugned order would not be covered by clause (b) of the Proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 115 of CPC. ( 7 ) HOWEVER with a view to satisfy the conscience of the court and with a view to ensure that justice is also seen to have been done I shall briefly discuss the validity of the reasoning and conclusions drawn by the Assistant Collector in the impugned judgment. ( 7 ) HOWEVER with a view to satisfy the conscience of the court and with a view to ensure that justice is also seen to have been done I shall briefly discuss the validity of the reasoning and conclusions drawn by the Assistant Collector in the impugned judgment. It must be distinctly noted in order to clarify and confine the nature of controversy that the plaintiff did not and has not sought a right of way through the fields of the defendants viz. Survey Nos. 12 and and 123. The right of way which he has claimed and sought is along the northern boundary of these two fields. ( 8 ) THE Mamlatdar had rejected the plaintiffs application one of the main reasons for the rejection being that according to him the plaintiff had led no documentary evidence to substantiate his claim as regards the right of way. This observation and finding of the Mamlatdar is clearly erroneous and as rightly observed by the Assistant Collector is a result of the non-application of mind on the part of the Mamlatdar. The plaintiff has produced village Form 7 in respect of the land of the first defendant viz. Survey No. 121. The fact that the village Form is on record cannot be disputed. The Mamlatdar had clearly not taken trouble to read the entry under the heading other rights. Under this heading there is a specific recital that the plaintiff has a right of way for the purpose of approaching Survey No. 124 (the plaintiffs land ). This recital has rightly been noted by the Assistant Collector and the latter is perfectly justified in observing that the Mamlatdar had clearly disclosed a total non-application of mind in ignoring the entry and thereby concluding that the plaintiff had not produced any documentary evidence on this issue. ( 9 ) THE Assistant Collector has also correctly dealt with the aspect of limitation which had been found against the plaintiff by the Mamlatdar. The Mamlatdar had recorded a finding that the plaintiff had failed to prove that the cause of action had arisen within 6 months preceding the filing of the proceedings. ( 9 ) THE Assistant Collector has also correctly dealt with the aspect of limitation which had been found against the plaintiff by the Mamlatdar. The Mamlatdar had recorded a finding that the plaintiff had failed to prove that the cause of action had arisen within 6 months preceding the filing of the proceedings. The Assistant Collector rightly observed that this finding is clearly erroneous in view of the fact that there is a specific recital in paragraph 5 of the plaintiffs application that he was obstructed from using the right of way in the first week of 9th month of the current year (monsoon ). Furthermore the same fact has been asserted by the plaintiff in his deposition before the Mamlatdar dated 6th November 1990 Furthermore even in the deposition of the plaintiff dated 10th January 1990 the same assertion is made. The Assistant Collector was therefore correct in observing that the Mamlatdar had clearly not applied his mind to the evidence on the record before him. It must therefore be held that the plaintiff had filed the proceedings within six months of his being obstructed and that therefore the same was within limitation. ( 10 ) AT this stage I may also take note of the observations of the Assistant Collector in respect of the decision of the Mamlatdar to the effect that the latter suffers from another serious deficiency viz. that the same is merely a recital of the depositions of the plaintiff and the defendants but the same does not contain any discussion of the evidence on merits nor any reasons for the conclusions drawn On a plain reading of the decision of the Mamlatdar it becomes apparent that the criticism levelled against it by the Assistant Collector is amply justified ( 11 ) THE decision of the Assistant Collector and the reasons for the same are strengthened by further observations made therein. He has also observed that he has taken a personal local inspection of the site of the dispute on 14th February 1992 After discussing what he had observed during the course of such local inspection he has come to the conclusion that there is a road for the passage of carts between Survey Nos. He has also observed that he has taken a personal local inspection of the site of the dispute on 14th February 1992 After discussing what he had observed during the course of such local inspection he has come to the conclusion that there is a road for the passage of carts between Survey Nos. 76 and 122 which passes along the western corner of Survey No 121 After going along the western boundary of Survey No 121 one can enter Survey No. 123 and by going along the western corner of Survey No. 123 the road enters Survey No. 124 on its northern side. He found that the defendants viz. occupants of Survey Nos. 121 and 123 have blocked the road passing along their northern boundaries. What is most important is that the Assistant Collector has noted7 as a resulted of this local inspection that the plaintiff was right in his assertion that except for this road passing along the northern boundary of Survey No. 121 and 1237 there is no other road for entering Survey No. 124 ( 12 ) THEREFORE on a total reconsideration of the evidence on record as appreciated and interpreted by the Assistant Collector in the impugned judgment I am satisfied that the said decision does not require any interference. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs. Ad interim relief vacated revision Dismissed. .