JUDGMENT :

Heard both sides at the admission stage.

2. Some of the defendants, who are aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the Courts below, whereby the suit filed by the respondent no. 1 declaring that the order passed by the respondent no.3. Tahsildar in a proceeding under section 5(2) of the Mamlatdar’s Courts Act, 1906 (for short “the Act”) is null and void and granting perpetual injunction restraining them from creating any way or cart track through his property being a portion admeasuring 4 Acres situated in the north-east corner of the land Gat no. 51, has been decreed.

3. The learned Advocate for the appellants would vehemently submit that since the respondent no. 1 had appeared in the proceedings under section 5(2) of the Act, he is not entitled to assail the judgment and order passed therein by a separate suit when a separate remedy is provided to challenge that order by way of revision under section 23(2) of the Act. The learned advocate would further submit that both the Courts below have grossly erred in appreciating the facts, circumstances and evidence on the record. He would advert to the topography demonstrated by a rough sketch in the memo of the second appeal at