JUDGMENT : M. R. VERMA. J. (Oral) :- This revision petition is directed against the order dated 13.9.1999 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Mandi. The sum and substance of the dispute is that the petitioner- plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) has instituted a suit for permanent prohibitory and mandatory injunction against the respondents-defendants (hereinafter referred to as the defendants) for restraining them from interfering with the right of the plaintiff to use a path which passes through field No. 146 owned and possessed by the defendants and to remove the obstruction. The right of passage is claimed for agricultural purposes on the basis of prescription and custom as recognised in the wazib-ul-arz. It was alongwith this suit that an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC was also moved by the plaintiff praying for restraining the defendants from blocking the passage through khasra No. 146. 2. The defendants resisted the suit as also the application on the grounds of maintainability and estoppel and on merits, claimed that no such path ever existed nor the plaintiff has any customary or prescriptive right to have a passage over the land khasra No. 146. 3. After hearing the parties, the learned trial Judge allowed the application partly and directed the defendants not to obstruct the user of the passage by the plaintiff for the purpose of agricultural operations. 4. Feeling aggrieved, two of the defendants preferred an appeal which « was heard and decided by the learned Addl. District Judge, Mandi, who set aside the order passed by the learned Sub Judge. Hence the present revision petition. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the material placed on the file. 6. In essence, the claim of the plaintiff is that he has a right to use a passage through the fields including khasra No. 146 to go to his fields for the purpose of cultivation of the land and in connection with other collateral purposes concerning agricultural operations. The right so claimed is alleged » to be based on prescription as also the custom, as recognised by the wazib-ul-arz. The right so claimed is alleged » to be based on prescription as also the custom, as recognised by the wazib-ul-arz. The acquisition of such right by prescription is undoubtedly a matter of evidence and at this initial stage of the litigation, it will not be appropriate to express any view about existence or non-existence of the alleged prescriptive right of the plaintiff. However, it is a notorious practice in rural -areas that a cultivator can take his bullocks, plough etc. to his field through the fields of others for the purpose of ploughing and can also use the land of others as a passage for the purposes connected with carrying out the agricultural operations. The existence of such customs where they prevail is recorded in the wazib-ul-arz. In the instant case, such a customary right is recorded in the wazib-ul-arz which prima-facie shows that the plaintiff has a right to use passage through the land of others to reach his land for undertaking the agricultural operations. Negativing such a custom at this initial stage can lead to various problems including prohibiting the plaintiff to reach his land to cultivate it. Thus, the plaintiff has prima-facie a good case as found by the learned Sub Judge. 7. As already stated hereinabove, not allowing temporary relief as prayed for, at this stage, may amount to debaring the plaintiff from cultivating his land and also from exercising a customary right which prima-facie is shown to be vested in him, which will cause irreparable loss to the plaintiff which cannot be otherwise compensated in terms of money. 8. The cumulative effect of the above conclusions is that the balance of convenience is in favour of restraining the defendants from obstructing the plaintiff to use the passage in suit for agricultural purposes. However, the user deserves to be restricted - for agricultural purposes only. 9. In view of the above, this revision petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside and the order dated 30.12.1998 passed by the learned Sub Judge is restored, subject to the condition that the passage in suit will be used by the plaintiff for agricultural purposes only. CMP 45/2000 10. Calls for no orders, in view of the orders passed hereinabove. With these observations, this application stands disposed of.