(1.) This Second Appeal has been preferred against the confirming judgment.
(2.) The Appellant of this Second Appeal was the defendant No.1 in the suit vide C.S. No.10 of 2006 and he was the Appellant No.1 in the First Appeal vide R.F.A. No.38 of 2011.
(3.) The suit of the plaintiffs (those are the respondent Nos.1 to 5 in the Second Appeal) vide C.S. No.10 of 2006 against the defendant Nos.1 to 4 (those are the Appellant and Respondent Nos.6, 7 & 8 in this Second Appeal) was a suit for permanent injunction simpliciter.