JUDGMENT 1. - Instant writ petition has been filed by the defendant-petitioners to quash order dated 14.7.2011 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), Maoli (District Udaipur) passed in Civil Misc. Case No. 36/2010 upon application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2, C.P.C., for temporary' injunction in the suit filed by the plaintiff for mandatory and permanent injunction; so also, order dated 24.8.2011 passed by the Addl. District Judge No. 3, Udaipur in Civil Appeal No. 18/2011, by which, learned appellate Court upheld the order passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), Maoli dated 14.7.2011. 2. Brief facts of the case' are that respondent-plaintiffs preferred suit for mandatory' and permanent injunction with the prayer that way is situated in Araji Vo. 1403 related to the petitioner-defendants and respondents were utilising the way in question for last more than 17 years because the way in question was granted by the then landlord Maharaja Udai Singh. According to respondent-plaintiffs the said way was provided to reach their agriculture fields situated in Araji No. 1413, 1415, 1422, 1407, 1420, 1416 and 1426. 3. According to the respondent-plaintiffs, the way in question was closed by the defendant-petitioner by affixing gate and by making pit on the way in question. Suit was filed for grant of mandatory injunction to open the way in question and, further, permanent injunction for not interfering in the user of the way by the respondent-plaintiffs. In the temporary injunction application filed by the respondent-plaintiffs, the trial Court appointed Tehsildar Mavli as Commissioner vide order dated 18.10.2010 and, in compliance of the order dated 18.10.2010, after making inspection on 19.10.2010, the Tehsildar Mavli submitted report on 21.10.2010. 4. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that Tehsildar Mavli has failed to submit complete site report and further failed to mention the public way which is available through Araji No. 1360 and 1406. The petitioners also submitted objection regarding Commissioner's report but the trial Court while accepting the Commissioner's report granted temporary injunction in favour of the respondent-plaintiffs whereby the trial Court restrained the petitioner-defendants from interfering in the user of the way in question by the plaintiffs. 5. The petitioners also submitted objection regarding Commissioner's report but the trial Court while accepting the Commissioner's report granted temporary injunction in favour of the respondent-plaintiffs whereby the trial Court restrained the petitioner-defendants from interfering in the user of the way in question by the plaintiffs. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that by way of granting temporary injunction final relief has been granted which is totally erroneous in view of the fact that as per settled principles of law final relief cannot be granted by way to temporary injunction. It is also submitted that plaintiffs have failed to prove under Section 15 of the Easementary Rights Act, inspire of that the trial Court granted injunction in their favour which is totally illegal. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioners invited my attention towards judgment reported in 2008 (1) WLC 515 and judgment reported in AIR 1996 SC 510 and submits that the trial Court as well as appellate Court have wrongly relied upon the Commissioner's reported to accept the fact that there is public way in the open land in question and respondent-plaintiffs are entitled to use the same, it is also pointed out that the appellate Court has also failed to appreciate the grounds raised by the petitioners and upheld the order passed by the trial Court, therefore, both the orders impugned deserve to be flashed. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioners and submitted that the concurrent finding of both the Courts below does not require any interference. It is also pointed out that the suit was filed for declaration and mandatory and permanent injunction against the respondents to open the way which was in existence for last 17 years and even upon the Commissioner's report and documents filed by the defendant-petitioners themselves in this writ petition it is revealed that the way is existing in the revenue records also. Therefore, no error has been committed by both the Courts low and this writ petition may be dismissed. 7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties. I have perused the entire order of this writ petition; more specifically, the Commissioner's report Ex. 3 and map Ex. 4. 8. Upon perusal of both map Ex. 4 and Commissioner's report Ex. Therefore, no error has been committed by both the Courts low and this writ petition may be dismissed. 7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties. I have perused the entire order of this writ petition; more specifically, the Commissioner's report Ex. 3 and map Ex. 4. 8. Upon perusal of both map Ex. 4 and Commissioner's report Ex. 3, it is revealed that both these documents loudly speak that the way in Araji No. 1403 is in existence in the revenue record and the report was prepared in presence of the Patwari of the area in which it is specifically observed that there is way in existence, upon which, there is iron gate; meaning thereby, there is prima facie evidence on record to prove the fact that way in question was in existence, therefore, it cannot be said that the trial Court has committed any wrong to pass order to open the said way and allowed the plaintiffs to use the same. Said finding is further approved by the appellate Court. Therefore, in my considered opinion, arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner-defendants are not sustainable because as per the documentary evidence of the revenue department the fact is borne out that way was in existence for last many years. It appears that the trial Court has simply allowed the plaintiffs to use the way which was in existence and that cannot be treated to be granting final relief; more so, the order has been passed for the agriculturists who were using the way as per the existing situation. In this view of the matter, while following the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shalini Shyam Shetty's case reported in (2010) 8 SCC 329 , I am not inclined to interfere in the matter.Hence, this writ petition is dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******