The original defendants have by this Second Appeal challenged the reversing judgment dated 22.12.1989 delivered by the I1nd Additional District Judge, Nagpur in Regular Civil Appeal No.503/1984. By that judgment while setting aside the dismissal of Regular Civil Suit No.31/1978, filed by the present respondents in the Court of 3rd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nagpur; the Lower Appellate Court permanently restrained the appellants from erecting any structure over the portion lying to western side of the plaintiffs' plot no.20A in Khasara no.54 of Sakkardara Road, Mouza Sakkardara, Tahsil and District Nagpur. The suit was filed by the respondent contending that to the West of his plot no.20A . there is 80 feet Wide public road and present appellants have started construction over the said road illegally. The suit was dismissed by the tria1court, after observing that the plaintiff could not establish that said construction undertaken by the, defendants in any way constitutes invasion of his legal right. It found that as per report of Commissioner, there was no road existing on West side of plot no.20A. The Lower Appellate Court while reversing this judgment found that the original defendants accepted that there was 60 feet wide road adjacent to the West of the plot purchased by her husband and the said road later on became 80 feet wide and it ran over her plot no.20. It further found that the said plot no.20 of defendant was acquired by the Nagpur Improvement Trust for construction of 80 feet wide road. It further foundt that in some other litigation the Honble High Court permitted Nagpur Improvement Trust to start demolition work of structures on acquired land and therefore the plaintiff was entitled to get road frontage for his plot on Western side.

2. This Appeal has been admitted on 30.03.1992 on the following substantial question of law :

‘Whether as a consequence of the decision in 1992 Mh.L.J.P.179, there is a substantial change in the circumstances owing to which the relief of permanent injunction granted to the respondent requires to be reconsidered? '

During final hearing of the Second Appeal, the appellants moved Civil Application No.1100/2008, for framing additional substantial questions of law. The. Application was opposed by the respondents/plaintiffs' by filing reply affidavit. After hearing the parties on 13.02.2008, 5 more questions came to be framed as additional substantial questions of law. Those questions are as under:

2. Whether the suit filed by the respondent no.1 [original plaintiff) was not maintainable in law since the same was improperly constituted and whether the same suit was liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties such as Nagpur Improvement Trust, Nagpur Municipal Corporation and Town Planning Authority?

3. Whether the 1st Appellate Court erred in jurisdiction in allowing the appeal on such improperly constituted suit for want of necessary parties?

4. Whether respondent no.2 [original plaintiff] has any legal right to maintain the suit or to the reliefs claimed in the suit and he has no, locus standi at all and he has claimed any reliefs in the suit against the appellants-original defendants ?

5. Whether judgment of 1st Appellate Court in Regular Civil Appeal No.503/l984 is vitiated on the grounds of non-consideration of the material documents on record i.e. the inspection report of the Commissioner appointed by the trial Court in the original suit?

6. Whether the judgment of the 1st Appellate Court is vitiated on the ground of placing undue and unwarranted reliance on the inadmissible evidence about alleged acquisition of plot no.20 belonging to the original defendant no.1 without there being any pleading to this effect contained in the original plaint and disregarding the material on record evidence ?

3. In. this: background I have heard Senior Advocate Shri. R.B. Pendharkar with Advocate Shri. Hedau for appellants/defendants and Advocat Shri B.N. Mohta, for respo