having width of 5-10 meters and the same was renovated recently by using the fund from member of Kerala Legislative Assembly and that the defendant/petitioner herein had demolished the thorn fencing on the southern and western side of the plaint schedule property and is trying to construct the compound wall encroaching into the plaint schedule property in a manner educing the width of the way. Ad interim injunction was granted to the plaintiff. Later, the petitioner had filed Ext.P3 objection to Ext.P2 application, pointing out that the plaintiff has made a misrepresentation before the court below for obtaining the ad interim injunction, that the compound wall is being constructed after leaving 1 ½ -2 feet width from his property. Further the petitioner would asserts that the compound wall sought to be constructed by him after leaving 1 ½ -2 feet width from his property and therefore, the width of the way is increased to that extent and therefore, the plaintiff had no right to obstruct the same, it is contended. Further, it is stated that the plaintiff is now residing anywhere near to the area in question and that practically he does not have any grievance in the matter. Since, the petitioner's property was lying open and exposed to trespass, there is no reason for the plaintiff to be prejudiced since no part of his property was even remotely adjacent to the property of the petitioner. The petitioner had thereupon filed Ext.P4
