ORDER P.K. Misra, J. - Plaintiff has filed this appeal against a confirming decision dismissing the suit for permanent injunction. 2. The case of the Plaintiff is that he is the owner of plot No. 19/3646/4863 measuring Ac 0.56 decimals appertaining to Khata No. 1242 and plot No. 19/3908 with an area of Ac.0.24 decimals under Khata No. 164 of mauza Paschima Badagada having purchased the same from the previous recorded owner Kapila Barik. The disputed land belongs to State Government and is adjacent to the land of the Plaintiff. It connects the land of the Plaintiff with the Cuttack-Puri Road and is used by the Plaintiff for going to Cuttack-Puri Road. The Defendants without any right over the disputed land were trying to block the said land 3. The Defendants filed written statement denying the allegations made in the plaint. In the written statement it was stated that the disputed land appertains to a portion of Sabik Plot No. 116 in mauza Laxmisagar and was Rakshit Anabadi in nature. The Sabik plot No. 116 constitutes a major portion of Budheswari Colony which came up about 25 years. Existence of road has been denied. The Defendants claim to be in long possession of the land under their occupation. After filing written statement, the Defendants did not participate further in the suit and the suit was taken up for exporter hearing. 4. The Plaintiff examined himself in support of his case. Plaintiff also proved Exts. 1 and 2 which are non-final Parchas wherein the disputed land was shown to be a road. The trial court dismissed the suit on the ground that the previous final Record-of-Rights was not filed to prove that the disputed land was a road and Exts. 1 and 2 being not-final Parcha could not be relied upon and since no other witness except the Plaintiff had been examined to prove that the disputed land was being used as a road, the Plaintiff was not entitled to the relief of permanent injunction. 5. In the appeal filed by the Plaintiff, Defendants Respondents appeared through Advocates and contested the appeal. The lower appellate court observed that the Plaintiff was not entitled to permanent injunction against the Defendants without a declaration of right of way over the disputed land. It was also found that the State of Orissa should have been imp leaded as a party. The lower appellate court observed that the Plaintiff was not entitled to permanent injunction against the Defendants without a declaration of right of way over the disputed land. It was also found that the State of Orissa should have been imp leaded as a party. It also agreed with the finding of the trial court that the Plaintiff had not been able to prove satisfactorily about the existence of a road over the disputed land and the Plaintiff had a road to the adjacent west of his land over which he could go to Puri-Cuttack road. It also confirmed the finding that without the prayer for declaration relating to right of way, that suit for permanent injunction against the Defendants was not maintainable. 6. In this Second Appeal, there is no appearance on behalf of the Defendants-respondents. An application has been filed for amendment of the plaint, wherein it is indicated that during pendency of the appeal in this Court, the Defendants had raised a wall over the disputed land and the plaint may be appropriately amended to include the following paragraphs: (i) After para (9) the following may be inserted: (9.1) That in the meantime, the Defendants have constructed a puce boundary wall over the extreme north-east of the suit land, for which the Plaintiff could not use the suit land as the approach road to Cuttack-Bhubaneswar Main road. ii) After Clause (a) of para (11) the following sub-para may be inserted;-The Hon'ble Court may be further pleased to direct the Defendants by way of an order of mandatory injunction to demolish the boundary wall constructed by the Defendants and make the suit land free for use of the Plaintiff. I think, interest of justice would be served by allowing the Plaintiff to amend the plaint. Such amendment does not change the nature of the suit though it may require fresh evidence to be adduced in the suit itself. Since fresh evidence is required to be adduced, it would be just and proper to allow the appeal and remit the matter to the trial court to dispose of the suit afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties. However, it is necessary to clear certain misconception reflected by the courts below in their judgments. 7. Since fresh evidence is required to be adduced, it would be just and proper to allow the appeal and remit the matter to the trial court to dispose of the suit afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties. However, it is necessary to clear certain misconception reflected by the courts below in their judgments. 7. Both the courts below have observed that the disputed land being a Government land, it was necessary to impaled the State Government as a party. In the present case, the Plaintiff has alleged that the obstruction was being caused by the Defendants, Plaintiff has not alleged about any obstruction raised by the Government. Since there is no cause of action against the Government, it was not necessary to insist upon the impletion of State Government as a party. This is clear from the decision of this Court reported in Achut Kalsai and Another Vs. Madhu Kalsai, . 8. The courts below have also observed that it was necessary for the Plaintiff to pray for a declaration of his right of way over the disputed land. The disputed land admittedly belongs to State Government. The Plaintiff claimed that he was using the land to go to the Cuttack-Puri road. Existence of another road on the other side of the Plaintiff's land is not immaterial for this purpose nor was it necessary for the Plaintiff to seek for a declaration that he has got right of way over the disputed land. Even though the Plaintiff had not acquired a prescriptive right of way over the disputed land as he was using the same, such user cannot be obstructed by any person without having a better right over the disputed land and it is not necessary for the Plaintiff to seek for a declaration of his right of way. If it is ultimately found that the Plaintiff was using the disputed plot for going to Cuttack-Puri Highway, irrespective of the fact as to whether he had acquired a prescriptive right of way or not, appropriate order of injunction can be grains agented persons obstructing such user if such persons did not have better right than the Plaintiff. This view becomes clear from the decision of the Supreme Court reported in M. Kallappa Setty Vs. M.V. Lakshminarayana Rao, and the decision of the Kerala High Court reported in Ishwara Bhat Vs. Annappa Naika, . 9. This view becomes clear from the decision of the Supreme Court reported in M. Kallappa Setty Vs. M.V. Lakshminarayana Rao, and the decision of the Kerala High Court reported in Ishwara Bhat Vs. Annappa Naika, . 9. As already observed, the prayer for amendment is to be allowed. Since fresh evidence may be necessary to establish the allegations made in the amendment petition, it is necessary that the matter should now be remanded to the trial court. Accordingly, the petition for amendment is allowed, the judgments and decrees of both the courts below are set aside and the suit is remanded to the trial court for fresh disposal. Opportunity shall be given to both parties to adduce evidence. The suit should be disposed of as early as possible preferably by end of June, 1999. the Lower Court records are sent back immediately. There would be no order as to costs of the present appeal. Ordered accordingly. Final Result : Allowed