Karnataka HC Keeps Interim Ban On Blocking Plaintiffs’ Claimed 10-Foot Access Road, Leaves Alternate-Route Question Open

The petitioners, defendants in O.S. No. 135/2025, challenged an order of the First Appellate Court allowing the plaintiffs’ appeal and restraining the petitioners from obstructing a 10-foot-wide mud road on the southern side of Sy. No. 255 pending disposal of the suit.

The plaintiffs claimed that the road connected their land in Sy. No. 254 to a main road and had been used for many years; they sought access on the basis of easement of necessity.

The Trial Court had rejected interim relief, reasoning from the defendants’ sketch that an alternative access existed by a nala on the northern side.

The petitioners argued that other roads provided access, while the plaintiffs disputed that the routes shown gave them a usable connection to the main road.

The Court invoked its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, as reflected in the petition.

It applied the limited principle that an interim order based on a prima facie assessment does not determine the merits of the suit.

Whether an alternative route exists and provides access is a factual matter that may be investigated before the Trial Court, including through a Commissioner; the interim determination does not foreclose that inquiry.

The judgment cites no statute governing easements or judicial precedent.

The Court read the plaint as specifically alleging a 10-foot-wide road on the southern side of Sy. No. 255, connecting the plaintiffs’ land to Sy. No. 254 and used over several years.

It held that the petitioners’ reliance on the First Appellate Court’s reference to a road on the eastern side was misconceived: that portion of the appellate order had omitted the plaint’s specific reference to the southern-side road and could not be read as establishing that another road existed.

Since the appellate order rested on a prima facie assessment, the disputed existence and usability of an alternative route did not warrant interference at this stage; those matters remained open for determination by the Trial Court.

The parties may seek appointment of a Commissioner before the Trial Court to examine whether an alternative road exists and, if established, seek modification of the interim order in accordance with law.

The Court clarified that its decision concerned only interim relief and must not influence the trial or determination of the suit on merits.