JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. CMPMO No.157 of 2022 a/w CMP No.5937 of 2022 By way of the present petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the orders passed by the learned trial Court as well as the learned 1st Appellate Court, in terms whereof, the application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure alongwith the Civil Suit by respondent No.1/plaintiff was allowed by the learned trial Court and the appeal filed by the present petitioner against the order passed by the learned trial Court was dismissed by the learned 1st Appellate Court. 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present petition are that respondent No.1/plaintiff (hereinafter referred to the as the plaintiff) has filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction pertaining to land comprised in Khewat No. 126, Khatoni No. 146, Khasra No. 70, measuring 8­01 bighas, situated at Village Niharkhan Basla, P.O. Brahampukhar, Tehsil Sadar, District Bilaspur, H.P., against the present petitioners/defendants (hereinafter referred to as ‘the defendants’), on the ground that the plaintiff is the owner of this suit land, whereas, the defendants are strangers, having no right, title or interest thereupon, but with the intent to occupy the suit land, they were threatening to create a path thereupon, without the consent of the parties. It was further the pleaded case of the plaintiff that the defendants were otherwise enjoying the path, existing on Khasra No. 581 for the construction whereof, the Government had spent huge money. 3. The stand of the defendants before the learned trial Court, inter­alia, is that there exists a path from the suit land, which was being enjoyed by the defendants, but the same stood recently closed by the plaintiff, on account of which, the defendants were suffering huge loss. It was further the stand of the defendants that Gram Panchayat Kotla had spent huge money for the construction of the said path, which now forcibly stood closed by the plaintiff. 4. Alongwith the suit, an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘the CPC’) was filed by the plaintiff, which was allowed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 30.06.2021, appended with the petition as Annexure P­1. 4. Alongwith the suit, an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘the CPC’) was filed by the plaintiff, which was allowed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 30.06.2021, appended with the petition as Annexure P­1. In terms of the order passed on 30.06.2021, the learned trial Court restrained the defendants from raising any kind of construction, changing the nature of the suit land or causing any kind of interference over the suit land, until the final disposal of the matter. While allowing the application, the learned trial Court held that as the plaintiff undisputedly was exclusive owner of the suit land alongwith the other co­sharers and the defendants were not having any right upon the same, therefore, balance of convenience was in favour of the plaintiff. Learned trial Court also held that the plaintiff had produced on record a Tatima, which demonstrated that adjoining to Khasra No. 70, there was a path passing through Khasra No. 581, which leads to the house of the defendants, which was being used by other villagers also and the defendants were threatening to create another path through Khasra No. 70, only for the reasons that the same may be the shortest route to their house, which was not right. Learned trial Court also held that the question of easementary right and the contention of the defendants that there was an ancestral land existing upon the suit land would be decided on merit, but at the stage of Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC, as the non­applicants/respondents were having an alternative path, that too recoded in the Jamabandi, the application for grant of interim relief could not be dismissed. Learned trial Court also mentioned in its order that since the plaintiff has shown his willingness to allow the defendants to use the said path, if desired by the plaintiff, the defendants could use the said path at the instance of the plaintiff, but no interference otherwise can be caused through the same by the defendants. 5. In appeal, these findings have been affirmed by the learned Appellate Court. 5. In appeal, these findings have been affirmed by the learned Appellate Court. In terms of judgment dated 27.11.2021, appended with the petition as Annexure P­2, learned Appellate Court after noting the contention of the parties held that the suit land comprises of a well­defined Khasra number, which was in the co­ownership of the plaintiff. Copy of Jamabandi for the year 2014­15 relateable to Khasra No.70 was on record and the ownersship of the land was of Lal Chand, Rajender and Kamlesh and the suit land was stated to be in their possession. No path was recorded thereupon. After referring to Para Nos. 7 and 8 of the preliminary objections taken in the written statement, learned Appellate Court held that a perusal of the said paras demonstrates that there was a path upon Khasra No. 581, which was also evident from the Jamabandi on record, which was “Rafai­aam”. Learned Appellate Court referred to the documents on record and held that it stood established that there was an approach to the house of the defendants. Thereafter, learned Appellate Court held that taking into consideration the fact that there was no foundation of any path crossing through Khasra No. 70 and further taking into consideration the fact that it was evident even from the pleadings of the defendants that there was a path existing on Khasra No. 581, the findings returned by the learned trial Court called for holding. 6. Feeling aggrieved, the defendants have filed the present petition. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the orders passed by the learned trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court and other documents appended with the documents. 8. While deciding the application, filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC, the ingredients, which have to be taken by the Court, are (a) prima facie; (b) balance of convenience; and (c) irreparable loss. In the present case, both the learned Courts have held that as the plaintiff indeed was owner in possession of the suit land alongwith other co­sharers and defendants were strangers to the suit land, therefore, the plaintiff was having a prima facie case in his favour. In the present case, both the learned Courts have held that as the plaintiff indeed was owner in possession of the suit land alongwith other co­sharers and defendants were strangers to the suit land, therefore, the plaintiff was having a prima facie case in his favour. Both the learned Courts have also held that as it was evident from the documents on record that whereas, on the one hand, there was no path upon the suit land, there was a path available on Khasra No. 581, which was being used by the defendants and all the villagers, therefore, balance of convenience was also with the plaintiff. Learned Courts below also held that in such circumstance, but natural, if interim protection was not granted to the plaintiff, then, the plaintiff would suffer irreparable loss. This Court is of the considered view that the findings so returned by the learned Courts below call for no interference, because during the course of the arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner could not demonstrate that the said findings returned by the learned Courts below were perverse and not borne out from the record. In other words, the learned counsel for the petitioners could not demonstrate that either the suit land was not owned and possessed by the plaintiff alongwith co­sharers and that the defendants were strangers thereto or that the findings returned by the learned Courts below that there was a public path existing on Khasra No. 581 being used by all the villagers and the defendants, whereas, there was no path on Khasra No. 70, were wrong and incorrect findings. That being the case, this Court is of the considered view that no indulgence can be shown under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in favour of the petitioners for the reasons that in exercise of its jurisdiction vested under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court does not ordinarily substitute its view to the one taken by the learned Court below, if the view taken by the leaned Court below is a possible view on the basis of the material before the said Court, unless the findings are completely perverse. It is again reiterated that petitioners have not been able to demonstrate that the findings returned by the learned Courts below were perverse and accordingly, in view of the above reasons, the present petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed. 9. In view of the fact that this Court has dismissed the main petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and further as it is not for this Court to create evidence in favour of the present petitioner, the application filed for appointment of Local Commissioner under Order 26 Rule 9 of the CPC is also dismissed. However, it is made clear that the observations, which have been made by this Court both while dismissing the application filed under Order 26 Rule 9 of the CPC as well as while deciding the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are only for the purpose of adjudicating the present lis and the suit pending before the learned trial Court shall be decided by the said Court uninfluenced by the observations made by this Court in this judgment. Pending miscellaneous(s) application, if any, also stand disposed of.