Dilip Gupta, J. - (1.) The petitioner has sought the quashing of the judgment and order dated 10th March, 1993 by which the Civil Revision filed by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 was allowed and the order dated 10th September, 1991 passed by the Additional Munsif, Bijnor was set aside.
(2.) The records of the writ petition indicate that the petitioner had filed Original Suit No. 360 of 1980 in the Court of Munsif, Bijnor against respondent Nos. 2 and 3 for permanent injunction restraining them from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff in the upper story of the house in dispute. Subsequently, Smt. Zaitoon was impleaded as defendant No. 3 and on her death respondent Nos. 4,5 and 6 have been impleaded as the heirs and successors. The said suit was dismissed by the judgment and decree dated 21st January, 1982. The plaintiff-petitioner filed Civil Appeal No. 130 of 1982 and during the pendency of the aforesaid appeal the plaint was amended by adding the relief of declaration of title and possession. After the said amendment was allowed, an additional issue was framed in the Appeal as to "whether the plaintiff is the owner of the disputed property?" This issue was remanded to the Trial Court for recording a finding and for transmitting the same to the Appellate Court. The learned Munsif then tried this additional issue and recorded his finding by order dated 25th May, 1989. After receipt of this finding, the Civil Appeal was decided by the judgment and decree dated 11th July. 1990. The Appellate Court remanded the suit to the Trial Court to record fresh findings on all the Issues except the issue which was earlier remanded by the Appellate Court to the Trial Court on which a finding had been given by the Trial Court on 25th May, 1989.
(3.) On remand, defendants moved an application seeking permission of the learned Munsif to argue the whole case including the additional issue that had been framed by the Appellate Court. This application was rejected by the Munsif by the order dated 19th September, 1991 holding that the lower Court was bound by the directions given in the remand order and it cannot go beyond the directions and if the defendant was aggrieved by the directions given by the Appellate Court; then an appeal could have been filed but that was not done. Against this order, a Revision was preferred by defendants which was allowed by the judgment and order dated 10th March, 1993. It is this judgment and order that has been impugned in the present petition.;