The concurrent finding of the courts below as regards the existence of the B schedule road and its subsequent diversion by the defendants is rested on evidence. The courts below have not only relied on the reports and plans of the Advocate Commissioner in the present suit but also the report of the Advocate Commissioner in O.S. No. 385/2006 (who has also been examined). The lower appellate court was justified in granting a decree for consequential prohibitory injunction also since it ought to have been granted by the trial court in the facts and circumstances. The appellate court has obviously invoked the power under Order XLI Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure in moulding the relief and concurring with the trial court on the relief of mandatory injunction.
There is no question of law much less any substantial question of law in this regular second appeal. The regular second appeal fails and is dismissed.
DCS V.CHITAMBARESH JUDGE