- (1.) Heard Sri Avanish Srivastava, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Atul Dayal, learned counsel for appellants and Sri K.K. Nirkhi, Advocate, for respondent.
(2.) Following substantial questions of law need be considered in this matter: "(1) Whether it was justified that Lower Appellate Court passed the judgment of reversal without recording a finding regarding the allegation of plaintiff that the possession was taken by defendants-appellant during the pendency of suit though Trial Court found that the said fact could not be proved by plaintiff? (2) Whether an injunction could have been granted by Lower Appellate Court though the plaintiff, who, as alleged at the time of filing of suit, was in possession, but could not prove so, and the amendment was made in the plaint that defendants are in possession, therefore the possession should be handed over to him, could not state as to when he was dispossessed and whether the suit in dispute was within limitation or not?"
(3.) In order to understand the dispute and to facilitate adjudication of the aforesaid issues, few relevant facts may be stated as under.;