JUDGMENT Mr. Amit Rawal J.(Oral):- The present revision petition has been preferred at the instanceof the defendants in the civil suit titled as “Lakhwinder Kaur and others Vs.Bachan Singh and others” wherein the following relief had been sought:- “Suit for declaration to the effect that the plaintiffs andproforma defendant no.3 have indefeasible to get right of pathfor ingress and egress by way of prescription and easement ofnecessity through the passage comprised in Square No.76Killa No.22/2(0-9), 23/2(0-7), Khewat No.516 KhatuniNo.657, as per jamabandi for the year 2011-2012 situated invillage Abholi, Tehsil Rania, District Sirsa, further throughSquare No.65 Killa No.23(3-12) 24/1(4-8), 24/2(3-12), (on thesouthern side of these killa numbers) having two karams widthas per jamabandi for the year 2011-2012, situated in villageOttu, Tehsil Rania, District Sirsa; as a consequential relief ofpermanent injunction restraining the defendants from creatingany hinderance in Rasta/path to ingress and egress to reachthe house of the plaintiffs and proforma defendant situated inSquare No.66 Killa No.4/1(2-12) on the eastern side which isin ½ share and agriculture land in Square No.65 Killa No.25(8-0), etc. and also for mandatory injunction directing thedefendants for restoration of the same in Square No.65 KillaNo.23, 24/1 mischief of cause during the pendency of theprevious suit the defendants created any hindrance over thesaid path; on the basis of evidence of every description-oral aswell as documentary.” 2. Along with aforementioned suit, an ad interim applicationunder the provisions of Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC had been preferred. Thetrial Court vide order dated 05.04.2016 allowed the application restrainingthe petitioners-defendants in the suit from creating any hindrance in thepassage running on southern side of Killa No.23 and 24/1 of Square No.65with further direction that they may fill the earth in the damaged portion ofpassage to the extent of reasonable convenient level. The aforementionedorder has also been upheld in the Appellate Court and in this backdrop ofthe matter, present revision petition has been preferred. 3. Mr. Sandeep Punchhi, learned counsel appearing on behalf ofthe petitioners submitted that the respondents-plaintiffs had another landbearing Killa No.3 as depicted in the Aksh Shijra, which had been sold andtherefore, they had no passage to killa No.66//5/2, as the passage is onlyinto Khasra No.21/2. 3. Mr. Sandeep Punchhi, learned counsel appearing on behalf ofthe petitioners submitted that the respondents-plaintiffs had another landbearing Killa No.3 as depicted in the Aksh Shijra, which had been sold andtherefore, they had no passage to killa No.66//5/2, as the passage is onlyinto Khasra No.21/2. All these facts have not been noticed by the Courtsbelow for granting injunction and heavy reliance had been laid to theprevious interim order passed in suit instituted by Mulakh Raj and othersagainst the respondents Lakhwinder Kaur and others i.e. plaintiffs in thepresent suit. The plaintiffs have not been able to bring the case within theingredients/provisions of Order 39 Rule 1 and 2, thus, prima facie balanceof convenience is in favour of the petitioner-defendants and irreparable losswould be caused to them. The respondents-plaintiffs have no passagebelonging to their land whereas the passage belongs to petitionersdefendants.All these factors were required to be pondered upon andtherefore, the orders under challenge are not sustainable in the eyes of lawand liable to be set aside. 4. Mr. S.S. Rangi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of thecaveator-respondents submitted that the suit is at the stage of plaintiffs’evidence and undertakes to complete the trial within a reasonable timeperiod which this Court may deem appropriate. However, he submitted thatin earlier suit, there was not only an injunction order passed whereby thepresent respondents-plaintiffs herein and defendants in the trial Court wererestrained from interfering into the ownership and physical possession ofMulkh Raj over the suit property but it was subject to allowing therespondents-plaintiffs herein peaceful usage of the property. Theaforementioned order was assailed and the same was stayed. During thisperiod, defendant No.2 herein dug the earth of the passage. It is in thisbackdrop of the matter, the cause of action arose to file the suit in hand.Even the local commissioner was also appointed in the earlier suit and aswell as in this suit also. The report is also in tandem with thepleadings/application for interim stay as well as suit, thus, urges this Courtfor dismissal of the revision petition. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and appraised thepaper book. Serious dispute has arisen with regard to availability of thepassage which will be subject matter of evidence before the Court below.Such matters, in my view, cannot be examined in revision petition. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and appraised thepaper book. Serious dispute has arisen with regard to availability of thepassage which will be subject matter of evidence before the Court below.Such matters, in my view, cannot be examined in revision petition. Insteadof pondering upon the merit and demerit of the matter, I deem it appropriateto uphold the orders under challenge and dispose of the revision petition bygiving direction to the parties to lead evidence in a time bound manner. Theplaintiffs and defendants shall avail 3-3 effective opportunities and lead theevidence in support of their respective cases and also file the list ofwitnesses in advance in case any witness is to be summoned, much less, dietmoney. The aforementioned 3-3 opportunities will span over a period of 4-4 months each i.e. 8 months and thereafter in two months, the trial Courtshall decide the suit in accordance with law. 6. The revision petition stands disposed of in the above terms. Incase, the trial Court found that any of the parties is involved in the dillydallyingtactics, it shall take into consideration the same and passappropriate orders in accordance with law.