RITU RAJ AWASTHI,J. - (1.) Heard Mr. Pritish Kumar, learned counsel for appellant as well as Mr. G.C. Verma and Mr. P.V. Chaudhary, learned counsel for respondents and perused the records.
(2.) The instant second appeal under section 100 CPC has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 20.12.2013 passed in R.C.A. No. 70 of 2008; Nagar Palika Parishad v. Mahesh Giri and others by which the lower appellate Court has dismissed the appeal of the appellant-defendant and upheld the judgment and decree dated 21.10.2008 passed in Original Suit No. 29 of 2000 (Mahesh Giri v. Nagar Palika Khiri and others ).
(3.) While admitting the appeal, this Court has framed following substantial questions of law: "1. Whether both the Court are justified in relying or believing the entries made in the "Nazul register" in which the property in dispute recorded as State property for the purpose of "trenching ground"? 2. Whether the appellate Court is justified in law in affirming the judgment of the trial Court especially when entries in the name of the plaintiff/respondent no. 1 was set aside by the Consolidation Officer vide its order dated 23.09.2009? 3. Whether both the Courts have committed an error of law in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff of Permanent Injunction without ascertaining the fact that the property in dispute whether fall within the municipal limit or out the municipal limit? 4. Whether both the Courts are justified in answering the question of limitation when it is fully established from the records that the cause of action was accrued in year 1991 and suit was filed in year 2000, therefore the suit is barred by limitation? 5. Whether the appellate Court is justified in law in deciding the appeal without framing the point of determination and decision thereon which is mandatory for the appellate Court under Order 41, Rule 30 and 31 CPC?";