Judgment :- On 23.02.2007, this civil revision petition was admitted and in C.R.P.M.P.No.1096 of 2007, interim suspension was granted. 2. Sri S.Subba Reddy, learned counsel representing the respondents, filed C.R.P.M.P.No.2214 of 2008 to vacate the aforesaid interim order. Though the matter is coming up under the caption 'interlocutory', both the learned counsel, Sri T.Durga Prasad Rao, representing the revision petitioners, and Sri S. Subba Reddy, learned counsel representing the respondents, made a request for disposal of the main revision petition itself. 3. Sri T. Durga Prasad Rao, learned counsel representing the revision petitioners, would maintain that the appellate Court had not properly appreciated the respective pleadings of the parties and come to an erroneous conclusion, while granting temporary injunction in a mandatory form. The learned counsel also would maintain that it may be true that even temporary injunction can be granted in a mandatory form in exceptional circumstances, but this is not one such case. The learned counsel further would point out that the sugar cane crop was in existence in the alleged suit passage since long time, even prior to filing of the suit and when that being so, no relief of mandatory injunction had been prayed for in the suit and in such a case, the appellate Court issuing suitable directions in a mandatory form for the first time, cannot be sustained. 4. The learned counsel also would maintain that it is not as though subsequent to the filing of the suit, the things had been altered by subsequent events, so as to restore the status quo ante as on the date of filing of the suit. When the existing things had been there even as on the date of institution of the suit and when proper relief had not been prayed for in the main suit, granting temporary injunction in a mandatory form, of such a nature as granted by the appellate Court, cannot be sustained. The learned counsel, in all fairness, would submit that no doubt it was brought to the notice of the Courts below that certain third-party affidavits had also been filed, but no reference had been made relating to the said third-party affidavits in the orders made by the Courts below. The learned counsel had taken this Court through the findings recorded by the Court of first instance and also the findings of the appellate Court as well. The learned counsel had taken this Court through the findings recorded by the Court of first instance and also the findings of the appellate Court as well. However, the learned counsel would maintain that specific stand had been taken that the respondents are having an alternative way. But, this aspect may have to be gone into at the appropriate stage on appreciation of the evidence, which may be adduced by the parties. 5. On the contrary, Sri S. Subba Reddy, learned counsel representing the respondents-vacate stay petitioners, would maintain that the respondents purchased the lands in Survey Nos.49/5 and 49/4 from their respective owners under two registered sale deeds, dated 29.04.1987 and 30.08.2004 and in the said sale deeds, the passage to enter their fields had been specified. Further, the learned counsel also had made certain submissions relating to the relationship between the parties. The learned counsel also would maintain that the respondents filed I.A.No.1413 of 2005 praying for temporary injunction to remove the sugar cane crop in the path way. The Court of first instance erroneously dismissed the said application. Aggrieved by the same, the matter was carried in appeal by filing C.M.A.No.3 of 2006 on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem and the learned Senior Civil Judge, after recording reasons, allowed appeal granting suitable directions. If the C.R.P., to be allowed and the order of the appellate Court to be disturbed, the respondents may not be able to raise crops at all. 6. Heard the learned counsel. Perused the order made by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem in I.A.No.1413 of 2005 in O.S.No.385 of 2005 and also the findings recorded by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem in C.M.A.No.3 of 2006. 7. As already aforesaid, I.A.No.1413 of 2005 was filed in O.S.No.385 of 2005 praying for temporary injunction in a mandatory form. The respondents-plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration of title and for consequential injunction. The relationship between the parties and the purchases made by the parties also had been averred. Further, it is stated that in view of the obstruction caused to the suit passage, they are unable to raise any crops in the lands and hence, it would be essential to remove the obstruction of path way for their ingress and egress to carry out their agricultural implements etc., to their lands and to carry on agricultural operations. 8. Further, it is stated that in view of the obstruction caused to the suit passage, they are unable to raise any crops in the lands and hence, it would be essential to remove the obstruction of path way for their ingress and egress to carry out their agricultural implements etc., to their lands and to carry on agricultural operations. 8. The revision petitioners, the respondents in the said application, had specifically denied the suit passage and a specific stand had been taken that passage referred to in the registered sale deeds had been introduced for the purpose of litigation. Further specific stand had been taken that there is a puntha on the northern side of the land of the revision petitioners-defendants and also Nadella Satyanarayana's land, and the said puntha is being used by the respondents-plaintiffs and the said puntha leads to Subhadrapalem through their lands. 9. On behalf of the respondents-plaintiffs, Exs.P1 to P3 were marked and on behalf of the petitioners-defendants, Exs.R1 to R5 were marked. 10. The learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem, after recording certain reasons at para-8, came to the conclusion that inasmuch as there is no prayer for the relief of mandatory injunction in the main suit, it may not be just and proper to grant temporary injunction in a mandatory form and accordingly, dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the same, the matter was carried by filing C.M.A.No.3 of 2006 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem. 11. The appellate Court having framed the point for consideration at para-9, recorded reasons at paras-10, 11, 12 and 13, came to the conclusion that in the light of the report of the Commissioner and also the documents relied upon by the parties, the relief of temporary injunction in mandatory form be granted directing the revision petitioners-respondents to remove the sugar cane crops between points F-1 to F-4, as shown in the Commissioner's report within one week, in default, the respondents-plaintiffs are at liberty to get the same removed through process of law and accordingly, allowed the civil miscellaneous appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the present C.R.P., is filed. 12. As already referred to supra, while admitting the C.R.P., interim suspension had been granted on 23.02.2007. Aggrieved by the same, the present C.R.P., is filed. 12. As already referred to supra, while admitting the C.R.P., interim suspension had been granted on 23.02.2007. It is needless to say that the interim suspension granted by this Court has been in force sufficiently for a long time and now an application, being C.R.P.M.P.No.2214 of 2008 is filed to vacate the said interim suspension. There cannot be any doubt or controversy that temporary injunction in a mandatory form also can be granted, but this power has to be exercised only in exceptional cases and sparingly. Here is the case where an objection has been raised to the report of the Commissioner relating to alternative passage and further specific stand had been taken relating to the existence of alternative passage both in the counter and in the written statement. It is no doubt true that certain submissions were made relating third-party affidavits. Inasmuch as an application for temporary injunction would be decided on affidavits, counter affidavits and third-party affidavits and also the other material which may be relied upon by the parties, and when third-party affidavits had been relied upon, it is the bounden duty of the Courts to refer to the contents of the third-party affidavits and record prima facie findings. 13. On the aspect of granting or refusing mandatory injunction on an interlocutory application, the under noted decisions may be referred to. Nandan Pictures Ltd., v Art Pictures Ltd., and others ( AIR 1956 Cal. 428 at 429), Suranna v Somulu ( AIR 1969 AP 368 ), State of Bihar v Usha Devi (AIR 1956 Patna 455), Bhupatlal v Bhanumati (AIR 1984 Guj), James v Jaimon James (1998 (3) Civ.L.J. 121 at 123), M/s. Magnum Films and another v Golcha Properties Pvt. Ltd., (AIR 1983 Del.392), Indian Cable Co., Ltd., v Smt. Sumithra Chakraborty (AIR 1985 Cal.248), Vincent v Aisumma ( 1988 (1) KLT 420 ), Bebah Narayan Landge v Mahadu Bhikaji Tonchar and others (AIR 1989 Bom.247), Smt.Rajnibai alias Mannubai v Smt. Kamla Devi and Others ( AIR 1996 SC 1946 ), Union of India v Yashwant Agarwal (1996 (1) Civ.L.J. 318 at 319), Sampatraj C. Shah v Lajpatrai C. Agarwal ( AIR 2000 Guj. 67 at p.69). 14. 67 at p.69). 14. It is needless to say that when certain prima facie findings are recorded in an interlocutory application, the suit may have to be decided not being influenced by any such findings. As already observed supra, whether serious prejudice would be caused to the respondents-plaintiffs since there is no other alternative way to reach their lands, this question also may have to be decided on appreciation of evidence, especially in the light of the specific stand taken by the revision petitioners in their pleading. The right to have a passage in the light of the sale deeds also may have to be gone into while deciding the suit in the light of the evidence, which may be adduced by the parties. 15. When this Court is satisfied that this is not one such case where temporary injunction to be granted in a mandatory form in the light of the peculiar circumstances, the impugned order is hereby set aside and the C.R.P., is accordingly allowed. However, in view of the relationship between the parties, the parties to bear their own costs. 16. In view of the urgency pleaded, since it is stated by Sri S. Subba Reddy, that the respondents-plaintiffs are unable to raise crops for want of passage, let the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem, decide the suit itself within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.