Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J : 1. This appeal will be heard. Lower court records need not be called for. Since the respondents are represented by learned advocate Mr Biswaroop Bhattacharya, service of notice of appeal upon the respondents is dispensed with. The appeal thus be treated ready as regards service. 2. Immediately after the appeal was admitted for hearing under the provision of Order XLI, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, we were requested by learned counsel for the respective parties to dispose of the appeal itself on merit. We were informed by them that all papers which are necessary for disposal of the appeal are annexed to the injunction application (CAN No.10382 of 2016) and the supplementary affidavit which was filed by the appellants in connection with the injunction application. 3. Considering such prayer of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, we have decided to dispose of the appeal itself on merit by dispensing with the requirement of filing paper books in this appeal. 4. Let us now consider the merit of the instant appeal in the facts of the instant case. Case of the appellants briefly stated is as follows:– The plaintiffs, viz. the appellants herein, filed a suit for declaration of their easementary right through ‘B’ schedule property. The ‘B’ schedule property belongs to the defendants, viz, the respondents herein. The defendants were trying to raise a boundary wall on their land and thereby trying to block the passage through which the plaintiffs have their only access to their land. The plaintiffs claim that they have purchased 1.29 decimals of land out of total measuring about 1 acre 39 decimals in plot no.57. It is alleged by them that on the southern boundary of the plaintiffs’ purchased land, Dag no.336 situates, and thereafter the PWD road runs from east-west. It is also claimed by the plaintiffs that all the three sides of their land are locked by the land of other landowners. The plaintiffs claim that they have no access to their land either through its northern boundary or through its eastern boundary or through the western boundary. The plaintiffs thus claim that the only access which the plaintiffs have in their land is through Dag no.336 which is adjacent to the PWD road. The plaintiffs claim that they have no access to their land either through its northern boundary or through its eastern boundary or through the western boundary. The plaintiffs thus claim that the only access which the plaintiffs have in their land is through Dag no.336 which is adjacent to the PWD road. They further claim that they have no other access to their land, and that they have acquired an easementary right of access to their land through the said Dag no.336 belonging to the defendants. Since the defendants are now trying to raise construction on the plot no.336 with a view to obstruct the access of the plaintiffs to their land, the plaintiffs have filed the said suit for declaration of their easementary right through the strip of land lying on plot no.336 adjacent to PWD road and prayed for injunction for restraining the defendants from raising any construction over plot no.336 so that the plaintiffs’ right of easement over the strip of land lying on plot no.336 being ‘B’ schedule land is not obstructed by such construction. 5. After filing the said suit, the plaintiffs have filed an application for temporary injunction for restraining the defendants from raising any construction on the strip of land lying on plot no.336, being identified at schedule ‘B’ property in the plaint as well as in the injunction application, so that the plaintiffs’ access to their land lying on plot no.57 through ‘B’ schedule property is not obstructed during pendency of the suit. An ad interim order of injunction in similar term was also sought for by the plaintiffs in the said application. 6. Learned trial Judge refused to pass any ad interim injunction in favour of the plaintiffs by the impugned order. While refusing to grant the ad interim order, the learned trial Judge held that there was no urgency in the case for which the ad interim injunction could be passed. While rejecting the plaintiffs’ prayer for injunction the learned trial Judge did not consider as to whether the three well-settled tests for grant of injunction are satisfied in the instant case or not. 7. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and have considered the materials on record. The title deeds through which the plaintiffs are claiming title over their property have been disclosed before us by way of a supplementary affidavit. 7. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and have considered the materials on record. The title deeds through which the plaintiffs are claiming title over their property have been disclosed before us by way of a supplementary affidavit. Even the title deed through which the defendants are claiming title over their property has also been disclosed in the supplementary affidavit filed by the appellants before this court. 8. We are informed by Mr Sabyasachi Bhattacharya, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants, that all those title deeds were produced before the learned trial Judge at the time of hearing of the plaintiffs’ injunction application. 9. We have considered all the title deeds through which both the parties are claiming title over the said property. On perusal of the title deed of the defendants, particularly the map which was annexed to their title deed, we find that the land of the plaintiffs being part of plot no.57 is lying on the northern boundary of the defendants’ land being plot no.336 and part of Dag no.57. The plot no.336 is adjacent to the PWD road. The three sides of plot no.57 belonging to the plaintiffs are locked by other plots of land belonging to other landowners. There is no access to plot no.57 through the other three sides of the plot belonging to the plaintiffs. The map which is enclosed with the defendants’ title deed clearly shows that the only access which the plaintiffs can have to their land is through the intervening plot being plot no.336 which is adjoining to the PWD road. The strip of land lying on plot no.336 over which the plaintiffs are claiming their right of easement is described as ‘B’ schedule property. On considering topography of the plaintiffs’ land as depicted in the map enclosed with the title deed of the defendants themselves, we are of the view that the defendants have no other right of way to their land, excepting through the plot no.336 which is lying adjacent to the PWD road. We also get this reflection of the same topography of the plaintiffs’ land from the maps annexed to the plaintiffs’ title deeds. 10. Accordingly, we hold that if the passage over the ‘B’ schedule property is blocked by raising construction by the defendants, the plaintiffs will have no access to their land lying on plot no.57. We also get this reflection of the same topography of the plaintiffs’ land from the maps annexed to the plaintiffs’ title deeds. 10. Accordingly, we hold that if the passage over the ‘B’ schedule property is blocked by raising construction by the defendants, the plaintiffs will have no access to their land lying on plot no.57. We thus hold that the plaintiffs have been able to make out a strong prima facie case for going to trial. The balance of convenience and inconvenience is also in favour of the plaintiffs in as much as if their passage through ‘B’ schedule property is obstructed by raising construction by the defendants on plot no.336, the plaintiffs will not be able to have any access to their land. 11. We thus hold that this was a fit case for grant of ad interim injunction in favour of the plaintiffs; as, if such ad interim injunction is refused and their access is blocked by raising construction on the schedule ‘B’ property by the defendants, the loss which will be suffered by the plaintiffs will be irreparable. 12. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order dated September 20, 2016 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 3rd Court at Howrah in Title Suit No.390 of 2016 and pass an ad interim order of injunction restraining the defendants/respondents from raising any construction on the ‘B’ schedule property and/or creating any obstruction in the free access to the plaintiffs’ land through the ‘B’ schedule property till the disposal of the plaintiffs’ application for temporary injunction. 13. We are informed by Mr Sabyasachi Bhattacharya that a copy of the plaint and the injunction application and the documents on which the plaintiffs will rely upon in course of hearing of their application for temporary injunction have already been served upon the learned advocate-on-record of the defendants in connection with this appeal. We thus grant leave to the defendants/respondents to file objection to the plaintiffs’ application for temporary injunction, if they are so advised, within two weeks after reopening of the court after the ensuing Christmas vacation; counter-objection, if any, be filed by the plaintiffs/appellants by a week thereafter. We request the learned trial Judge to make all endeavour to dispose of the plaintiffs’ application for temporary injunction by the end of February 2017. 14. We request the learned trial Judge to make all endeavour to dispose of the plaintiffs’ application for temporary injunction by the end of February 2017. 14. It is, however, made clear that while disposing of the plaintiffs’ application for temporary injunction the learned trial Judge will not be swayed by any of the observations made by this court hereinabove as such observations are made by this court only for disposal of this appeal which is directed against refusal to grant ad-interim injunction by the learned trial Judge. 15. It is thus made clear that the learned trial Judge is absolutely free to decide the plaintiffs’ application for ad-interim injunction on its merit without being influenced by any of the observations made hereinabove. 16. With these directions, the appeal and the injunction application are disposed of accordingly. 17. Certified photostat copy of this order, if applied for, shall be given to the parties.