1023/61 against the respondent for perperual injunction and also for mandatory injunction restraining him from blocking passage of 5 ft.
2903/65, the respondent had removed the obstruction and companysequently, the execution case was struck out on February 25, 1966 on the finding that the passage had been cleared and obstruction was removed.
It was decreed by the trial Court on March 30, 1964 which was companyfirmed by the appellate Court on December 10, 1964.
When the appellants had filed an applecation for execution under Order 21, Rule 32, CPCin Execution Case No.
On appeal, the Additional District Judge by his judgment dated March 10, 1969 companyfirmed the same.
It was issued by way of attachment of the property and detention of the respondents in cinil prison if only the obstruction is number removed.
Since that was number done, the companyrts below have companymitted error of law in directing removal of the obstruction and also the attachment of the properties and direcion to keep the respondents in civil prison.
That evidence was number accepted and it was found that the respondent had companystructed the shop in the disputed area.
The appellant, therefore, filed again an execution application under Order XXI, Rule 32 in E.C.No.42/1967.
That was also upheld by the appellate Court by dismissing CA No.65/66 on March 6, 1967.
In the execution second appeal, the learned Single Judge reversed the decree and remitted the matter on the finging that under Section 22 of the Easements Act, it is required to be seen whether the obstruction has caused enjoyment of easementary right.
It is number an admitted position that subsequently a shop was companystructed which is an obstruction to the passage in question and it had companypletely blocked the passage.
One of the defences taken by the respondent was that he had sold the property to third parties who had companystructed the shop and thus it is number he who caused obstruction.
The 6th Day of November, 1996.
The exwcuting Court had directed, over ruling the oblections of the respondents, to remove the obstruction companypletely and issued injunction number to disobey the mandatory injunction.
In support of his companytention on this point the decree holder has examinde himself and has stated on oath thaaat by disputed companystruction the passage at QOADEMLP shown in the decree has been companypsetely blocked.
between the house of the house of the appellant and that of respondents and for removal of the obstruction.
Mr. R.K. Maheshwari, Advocate for the Respondent.
O R D E R The following Order of the Court was delivered O R D E R This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the learned single Judge of the Allahabad High Court, made on 9.4.1980 in Execution Second Appeal No.789 of 1969.
The admitted facts are that the appellant had filed Suit No.
Thus, the decree of mandatory injunction to remove the obstruction and perpetual injunction restraining the respondent from blocking the paeeage of the appellants through the QOADEMLP area of the land shown in the decree of the trial Court.
