ORDER 1. Order dated 16-1-2012, passed by III Additional District Judge, Khandwa, passed in MCA No. 19/11 is being questioned vide this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, whereby, an order dated 15-11-2011 by trial Court injuncting the respondent-defendant for causing interference in the suit property has been reversed. 2. The suit by the petitioner is for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of passage over Khasra No. 571 area 0.04 hectares used by the petitioner and his family members to reach land bearing Khasra No. 569/1, 569/2, 563/3, 564/4, 568, which as per plaint allegation belongs to the petitioner and his family members. An easementary right thereon having been claimed by the respondent/defendant leading to an order dated 17.8.2011 under section 131 of M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Code of 1959’) passed by Additional Tehsildar, Khandwa, creating right of passage thereover in favour of defendant. Along with suit petitioner filed an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, Code of Civil Procedure, 1980. 3. Trial Court on a finding that a passage in question being not a common passage and that the roads for ingress and egress of defendant exists, injuncted the defendant from causing any interference over the suit premises. Along with suit petitioner filed an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, Code of Civil Procedure, 1980. 3. Trial Court on a finding that a passage in question being not a common passage and that the roads for ingress and egress of defendant exists, injuncted the defendant from causing any interference over the suit premises. Trial Court observed :- ^^06- izdj.k esa oknh dh vksj ls ‘kkldh; uD’kk] Lo;a dk foØ; i=] [kljk ikaplkyk] Hkh izLrqr fd, gaSA oknxzLr laifRr ds vf/kdkj vfHkys[kksa [kljk Ø- 571 ls dksbZ vkus tkus dk jkLrk jgk gks bl rF; dk mYys[k oknh fnukad 31-3-1997 dks iathc) foØ; i= }kjk laifRr Ø; dh xbZ FkhA ijUrq foØ; i= esa Hkh laifRr esa ls fdlh ds tkus dk jkLrk gks ,slk dksbZ rF; mYysf[kr ugha fd;k x;k gSA izdj.k esa izfroknh us ,slk dksbZ nLrkost izLrqr ugha fd;k gS tks izFken`”V~;k laifRr ij mlds vkus tkus ds vf/kdkjksa ckcn fdlh rjg ds gd dks nf’kZr djrk gksA 7- izdj.k esa oknh dh vksj ls rglhynkj }kjk fd;k x;k LFky fujh{k.k vkSj LFky iapukesa ,oa iapukeksa dh lR;izfr izLrqr dh gSA ftlesa LFky fujh{k.k dj jftLVªh esa ntZ jkLrs dks can dj 7&8 o”kksZa ls iz’uk/khu jkLrs ds mi;ksx ds ckcn mYys[k djrs gq, mlh vuqlkj iapukek cukdj varfje jkLrk [kqyokus dk vkns’k fnukad 25-8-2011 dks fd;k x;k gSA bl ckcn dksbZ nLrkost izLrqr ugha fd;k x;k gS fd jftLVªh esa nf’kZr jkLrs dks can dj u, jkLrs ds mi;ksx ds fy, oknh o izfroknh lger gq, gksA mHk; i{kksa ds vfHkopuksa ls ;g Li”V gS fd U;k;ky; ds le{k ;g fopkj.kh; iz’u gS fd D;k izfroknh dks oknh ds [ksr esa ls vkus tkus ckcn dksbZ jkLrk izkIr gqvk Fkk ,oa bl fopkj.kh; iz’u dk fujkdj.k lk{; }kjk fd;k tkuk gS \ ,sls esa izFke n`”V~;k ekeyk izdV djus esa oknh lQy jgk gSA** 4. In an appeal under Order 43, Rule 1(r) of the Civil Procedure Code the Appellate Court intercepted the trial Court’s order on two counts, firstly, that a suit arising of a proceeding under section 131 of the Code of 1959 is not maintainable and secondly there being an undertaking by the petitioner plaintiff recorded in the Panchnama to give the right of way to the respondent defendant, reverse the trial Court order. 5. 5. Regarding first assumption that the suit is non maintainable there is no cavil even amongst the parties that in view of decision in Ramkanya Bai and another vs. Jagdish and others. 2011 RN 361 = 2011 (4) MPLJ 298, the suit in question is maintainable. It is held therein that :- “The Code nowhere bars the jurisdiction of civil Courts to decide upon easementary rights relating to agricultural or other lands. The Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code neither creates nor recognizes any new category of private easementary rights by way of right of way or right to take water, which is not covered by the provisions of the Easements Act or which is not required to fulfil the requirements prescribed by the Easements Act. An easement cannot be acquired otherwise than in the manner provided in the Easements Act. Section 131 of the Code does not provide for or recognize a new type of easement which is not contemplated or recognized in Easements Act, but merely deals with customary easements covered by section 18 of the Easements Act. Nor can it be said that the elements of an easement required to be fulfilled under the Easements Act are not required in respect of a private easement under section 131 of the Code. Apart from the fact that section 131 of the Code does not deal with acquisition of any special easement by some method which is not referred in the Easements Act, sub-section (2) of section 131 expressly provides that irrespective of any order passed by the Tehsildar under section 131, any person can establish any right relating to an easement by a civil suit. There is nothing in section 131 or any other provision of the Code, which makes the decision of the Tehsildar final and not open to question in a civil Court. Therefore, the decision of the Tehsildar will not bar a subsequent civil suit by either party to a proceeding under 131 of the Code, in respect of the easement claimed in the proceedings under section 131 of the Code.” 6. As to second assumption the Appellate Court relied upon the spot panchnama, dated 25.8.2011 to conclude that the plaintiff had consented for the right of passage over suit property. As to second assumption the Appellate Court relied upon the spot panchnama, dated 25.8.2011 to conclude that the plaintiff had consented for the right of passage over suit property. The said panchnama is brought on record, which is in following terms :- ^^ge fuEu gLrk{kjdrkZ fu- xzke dksjxyk rLnhd djrs gaS] fd U;k;ky; Jheku vfrfjDr rglhynkj egksn; [kaMok ds jktLo iz-Ø- 4&3&@13@2010&11 ds ikyu esa xzke dksjxkyk ds vkosnd egs’k firk /kUukyky fu- dksjxyk dks mudh d`f”k Hkwfe [k-u- 584@1- 585] 572] esa tkus gsrq vkosfnr jkLrk xzke iapk;r dksjxyk ds lkeus ls ¼vkcwn jksM+ ls vukosndksa }kjk vkosnd dks [ksr esa tkus ls ckf/kr jkLrk½ tks vkosnd ds [ksr esa tkus gsrq varfje vkns’k gqvk gS] varfje jkLrk [kqyokus gsrq vkt fnukad dks vkosnd ,oa izdj.k ds vukosndksa ,oa vU; xzkeokfl;ksa dh mifLFkfr esa LFky ij gYdk iVokjh ds lkFk mifLFkr gq,A LFky ij iz’uk/khu jkLrs esa vukosnd eqds’k firk izseyky ,oa rqylhjke firk HkkbZjke }kjk rkj [kqVs yxkdj vojks/k mRiUu fd;k Fkk mls mifLFkr iapksa ds ,oa vkosnd ,oa vukosndx.kksa dh mifLFkfr esa xzke dksVokj ds lg;ksx ls gVok;k x;k blh jkLrs ls vkxs tkdj vukosnd ukudjke firk uRFkwth }kjk [kqVs xkM+dj fdokM+h yxokbZ Fkh] og gVokbZ xbZ blh ekxZ esa vkxs vukosnd jkefd’ku firk uRFkwth }kjk ekxZ esa Mkyk x;k dpjk gVok;k tkdj vkosnd ds [ksr rd varfje jkLrk [kqyok;k x;kA vkt fnukad dks mifLFkr iapksa ds le{k ,oa ljiap xzke iapk;r dksjxyk dh mifLFkfr ,oa vkosnd ,oa vukosndksa dh mifLFkfr esa U;k;ky; ds varfje jkLrk [kqyokus ds vkns’k dk ikyu fd;k x;kA vukosndksa us dgk fd bl jkLrs ls vkosnd VªsDVj Vªkyh ,oa cSyxkM+h ys tk ldras gaSA** 7. The panchnama as is apparent therefrom is in pursuance to the proceedings under section 131 of Code of 1959, wherein on an application under section 132 an interim order dated 24.8.2011 was passed in the following terms :- ^^mHk;i{kksa ds vf/koDrkx.kksa }kjk is’k rdksZa dk Jo.k fd;k ,oa izdj.k ls layXu fujh{k.k fjiksVZ iapukek dk Hkh voyksdu fd;k gSA LFky fujh{k.k esa vkosfnr jkLrk tks xzke vkcqn ds jkLrs xzke iapk;r Hkou ds lkeus ls ,d jkLrk LFky ij cuk gqvk gSA tks 7&8 o”kZ iwoZ dk cuk gqvk gSa tks vkxs tkdj jkefd’ku firk uRFkq }kjk 6-7-2011 dks can dj fn;k ftlls vkosnd 7&8 o”kZ ls vkuk tkuk djrs Fks blds iwoZ vkosnd vius [ksr esa jth- esa ntZ jkLrs cykgh vkokl ls vkosndx.kksa ds [ksrksa vksj ls gksdj [ksarksa esa igqaprk Fkk jth- okyk jkLrk can gksus ij fdlh izdkj dh fy[kki<+h ugha gqbZ Fkh vkosfnr jkLrk vukosndx.kksa us jksdk gSA e-iz- Hkw&jktLo lafgrk] 1959 dh /kkjk 131 ds lqlaxr izko/kkuksa dk v/;;u ,oa LFky fujh{k.k fjiksVZ rFkk vf/koDrkx.kksa }kjk is’k rdksZa dk Jo.k djus ds mijkUr izdj.k ds vafre fujkdj.k dj vkosfnr jkLrk vFkkZr~ xzke iapk;r ds lkeus ls tks vkosnd ds [ksr rd tkrk gSA ftldk mi;ksx vukosndx.k vius [ksrksa rd tkus gsrq djrs gSaA ftls vukosndx.kksa us ckxM+ yxkdj jksd fn;k gS [kksyus dk vkns’k fn;k tkrk gSA ;g varfje jkLrk gSA ftldk mi;ksx izdj.k ds vafre fujkdj.k rd fd;k tk;sxkA vukosndx.k ,oa vkosnd ekSds ij ‘kkafr cuk, j[ksaxsA g-i- ,oa jk-fu- varfje jkLrk [kqyok;sA izdj.k esa vukosndx.kksa }kjk vkns’k 8] fu;e 3 rFkk /kkjk 151 dk vkosnu i= is’k fd;k gS fd vkosnd us vukosnd Ø- 3 fxj/kkjh firk uRFkw dks bl izdj.k esa O;FkZ i{kdkj cuk;k gSA D;ksafd ekSds ij fxj/kkjh firk uRFkw dh dksbZ tehu ugha gSA rFkk of.kZr Hkwfe ij fxj/kkjh firk uRFkw dk dksbZ vf/kdkj ugha gSaA blh izdkj /kkjk 151] O;-ok-iz-l- ds rgr vukosndx.kksa }kjk vkosnu i= is’k fd;k fd ekuuh; U;k;ky; }kjk vkosnd }kjk izLrqqr vkosnu i= varxZr /kkjk 131] e-iz-Hkw-jk-la- rFkk 32 ds rgr vkosnd }kjk pkgs x, jkLrs ds ifjizs{; esa LFky fujh{k.k fd;k gSA vkosnd blh izdj.k ds vkosnu }kjk iwoZ ls gh mi;ksx fd;s tk jgs jkLrs rFkk ftldk mi;ksx vkt Hkh vkosnd dj jgk gSa rFkk tks mRrj fn’kk esa fLFkr ugj ds ikl ds ukys ds lehi ls gksdj gS dk fujh{k.k djokuk pkgrs gaSA izdj.k ds U;kf;d fujkdj.k gsrq vko’;d gSA mDr nksuksa vkosnui=ksa dk vkos- vf/k- dk tokc is’k u djrs gq, rdZ lquk;k x;k ftldk Jo.k fd;k vRk% nksuksa vkosnu i= fujLr fd;s tkrs gaSA izdj.k esa varfje jkLrk [kqyokus gsrq jk-fu-g- iVokjh dks fy[kk tkosA** 8. Pertinent it is to note that being aggrieved by the said interim order that the petitioner has filed a suit. The question, therefore, is whether the Appellate Court was justified in relying upon the spot panchnama prepared in pursuance to the proceedings under section 131 subject to challenge in suit, holding the same to be a consent given by the petitioner plaintiff for the right of way over suit property. 9. Trite it is that while exercising the discretion for grant of an interim injunction during pendency of a suit following three tests are applied, viz. (i) whether plaintiff has a prima facie case, (ii) whether balance of convenience is in favour of the plaintiff, and (iii) whether the plainitiff would suffer an irreparable injury if temporary injunction is declined. These parameters are to achieve the object to protect the plaintiff from an injury, which cannot be compensated adequately. 10. Thus, when these three parameters are meted out the petitioner/plaintiff would be entiled for a relief of temporary injunction during pendency of the civil suit. [Please see : Dorab Cawasji Warden vs. Coomi Sorab Warden and others, (1990) 2 SCC 117 and Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. vs. Sriman Narayan, (2002) 5 SCC 760 ]. 11. It is a matter of record that the respondents defendants is the owner of Khasra No. 584/1, 585 and 572. That in 1920 one Bhila had purchased Khasra No. 348 (New No. 572) from Ghisabai vide sale-deed dated 22.4.1920 and therein no prima facie proof from the sale, which is on record that a right of passage is there from Khasra No.571. 12. Furthermore, respondent purchased Khasra No. 572 from Kadwa Grandson of Bhila vide sale deed dated 19.12.2199 (sic). 13. Apparently, when there was no right of passage to Bhila over suit property no such right could be created for the first time. 14. In the case at hand the Appellante Court has erred in placing reliance on panchnama, construing it to be prepared on consent given by the petitioner/plaintiff. The said panchnama in fact is in furtherance to an order passed in a proceeding in a revenue case under the Code of 1959. 15. 14. In the case at hand the Appellante Court has erred in placing reliance on panchnama, construing it to be prepared on consent given by the petitioner/plaintiff. The said panchnama in fact is in furtherance to an order passed in a proceeding in a revenue case under the Code of 1959. 15. The Appellate Court lost sight of the fact that order passed in the said proceeding being a subject-matter of challenge in the civil suit, no right could have said to accrue in favour of respondent/defendant on the basis of said panchnama. The Appellate Court committed an error in construing the preparation of panchnama as consent given by the petitioner/plaintiff. 16. In view whereof, impugned order dated 16.11.2011 passed by the trial Court is revived. 17. The petition is allowed to the extent above.