RAM BAHOR Vs. RAM ABHILAKH PANDEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 5.9.2003 passed by learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Haveli, district Faizabad in regular Suit No. 60 of 1980, by which the plaintiff's suit for permanent and prohibitory injunction was dismissed with costs and the judgment and order dated 25.8.2012 passed in regular Civil Appeal No. 59 of 2003, by which the appeal was allowed, cross-objection was dismissed and the plaintiff's suit was decreed with costs. Heard learned Counsel for both the parties and have gone through the records.

(2.) The learned first Appellate Court has rightly allowed the appeal, as the learned Trial Court has wrongly discussed the evidence as well as law on the point. This case was earlier decided and an appeal was preferred, which was allowed and the case was remanded back to the learned Trial Court with the direction to re-hear the matter and decide the case in accordance with law. But the learned Trial Court has repeatedly relied upon the discussions made by the learned first Appellate Court, by which the case was remanded back for re-trial as if they were binding upon it. Due to this misconception of law, the learned Trial Court has wrongly interpreted the evidence, which has been corrected by the learned first Appellate Court in a judicious manner. There is no infirmity in the discussions made and the conclusion arrived at by the learned first Appellate Court. No substantial question of law is involved in this case.

(3.) In Sir Chunnilal V. Mehta and Sons Ltd. v. Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd., 1962 AIR(SC) 1314 the Hon'ble Apex Court for the purposes of determining the issue has held: