Maintainability

Suit filed for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the respondent from obstructing the use of the pathway, which was the plaintiff have got easement of necessity. Ad interim injunction granted but later it was vacated. Soon after vacating the injunction order the respondent closed the pathway. Plaintiff file Civil miscellaneous appeal before the sub court and also filed a mandatory injunction application fore restore the pathway in its earlier position. The respondent taking an argument that CMA will not lie because the pathway no in existence. whether the argument is right?