JUDGMENT L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral).:- Plaintiff Som Parkash having remained unsuccessful in both the courts below in securing temporary injunction has filed instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging orders of the courts below. 2. The plaintiff alleged that he is owner in possession of 6 kanals land comprised of Rectangle No. 86, killa no. 6/1. There is disputed passage two karams in width for use of the plaintiff to have access to his aforesaid land in which his residential house also exists. There is no other passage for access to the plaintiff’s aforesaid land except the disputed passage. The disputed passage exists in 8 marlas of land of killa no. 86//5. The plaintiff has been using the disputed passage for three years before filing of the suit. The defendant tried to obstruct the said passage in order to grab the land of the passage by including in remaining land of killa no. 86//1. The plaintiff accordingly filed suit for permanent injunction and moved application for temporary injunction restraining defendant from blocking or dismantling the passage till decision of the suit. 3. The defendant alleged that he is owner in possession of land of various killa numbers mentioned in written statement including land of killa no. 86//5 measuring 8 kanals. The defendant denied the existence of the alleged passage at the spot. There is other passage left during consolidation proceedings for the land of the plaintiff and his wife. The defendant also made counter claim pleading that plaintiff has no concern with the land of killa no. 86//5 measuring 8 kanals. The defendant also sought permanent injunction and temporary injunction against the plaintiff restraining him from interfering in the possession of the defendant over the said land. 4. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Fazilka vide impugned order dated 20.8.2009, Annexure P/2, dismissed plaintiff’s application for temporary injunction and allowed application of defendant for temporary injunction in counter claim. First appeal preferred by the plaintiff against the said order of the trial court has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Ferozepur vide impugned judgment dated 13.3.2010, Annexure P/3. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff has preferred the instant revision petition. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. 6. First appeal preferred by the plaintiff against the said order of the trial court has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Ferozepur vide impugned judgment dated 13.3.2010, Annexure P/3. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff has preferred the instant revision petition. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that there is no other passage except the disputed passage for the plaintiff’s land including the house. The contention cannot be accepted. According to the plaintiff’s own version, the disputed passage is in existence for only three years before the filing of the suit. It would mean that prior to that the plaintiff was having some other passage for access to his land. Consequently, it cannot be said that there is no other passage except the disputed passage for the land of the plaintiff. In fact, it has been observed by the trial court that the defendant placed on record Akas Sajra and Killa Bandi to depict that there is other passage for the land of the plaintiff leading from village Abhun to village Patti Puran. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that the plaintiff has given 8 marlas other land of killa no. 86//6/1 to the defendant in lieu of the disputed passage. However, there is no material on record to substantiate this plea of the plaintiff. On the other hand, khasra girdawari Annexure P/5 reveals that defendant is owner as well as in possession of the entire land of killa no. 86//6/1. This circumstance falsifies the plaintiff’s version that he has given 8 marlas out of his land to the defendant in lieu of the disputed passage. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that since 2004-2005, gair mumkin rasta measuring 8 marlas has been entered in khasra girdawari out of killa no. 86//5. However, even if this entry is taken into consideration, it does not help the petitioner because there is nothing on record to depict that the said passage is meant for the plaintiff. On the other hand, defendant is recorded to be in exclusive possession of total 8 kanals land of killa no. 86//5. Consequently, the plaintiff has no right to use the alleged passage out of land of killa no. 86//5 with which the plaintiff has no concern at all. 9. On the other hand, defendant is recorded to be in exclusive possession of total 8 kanals land of killa no. 86//5. Consequently, the plaintiff has no right to use the alleged passage out of land of killa no. 86//5 with which the plaintiff has no concern at all. 9. For the reasons recorded herein above, I find no illegality in the orders of the courts below. The plaintiff has failed to make out a case for temporary injunction in his favour. On the other hand, the defendant made out sufficient case for grant of temporary injunction in his favour. The revision petition is without any merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine. However, nothing observed herein before shall be construed as an expression of opinion on merits of the suit. ------------