appeal submitted that the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court have grossly erred in not noticing the fact that on the Western side of the suit schedule property, lands in Survey Nos.33 and 34 are situated, which belonged to the defendants. It is his contention that as per the documents produced by defendants at Ex.D.2-Tahsildar Endorsement, Ex.D.3-R.I. Report, Ex.D.4-Village Report and Ex.D.5-Panchanama, there is a clear depiction of existence of road passing through the suit schedule property which is being used by the defendants. Thus, he submits that while granting the relief of injunction, Trial Court and the First Appellate Court ought to have appreciated existence of right of the defendants to use the suit schedule property for the purpose of ingress and egress to reach their land. He further submits that a representation was made to the Tahsildar by the defendants, who had issued an endorsement as per Ex.D.2 stating that since the suit is pending consideration, the representation would not be considered. Thus, he submits that the grant of permanent injunction by the Trial Court confirmed by the First Appellate Court has adversely affected the substantive rights of the
