( 1 ) SECOND Appeal No. 72 of 2002 has been filed against the judgment dated 3rd May 2002 delivered by the District Court, Kheda at Nadiad in Regular Civil Appeal No. 132 of 2001, which arises out of the judgment dated 15th February 2000 delivered by the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, at Petlad in Regular Civil Suit No. 289 of 1994. 1. 1 so far as Second Appeal No. 73 of 2002 is concerned, the same arises out of the judgment in Regular Civil Appeal No. 131 of 2001 which came to be filed against the judgement in Regular Civil Suit No. 43 of 1997. The dates of the judgment of the trial Court and the first appellate Court are the same as mentioned in relation to Second Appeal No. 72 of 2002.

( 2 ) THE appellant in Second Appeal No. 72 of 2002 is the original plaintiff, viz. Shri Sanatan Jain Dharam Shrimad Rajchandra Ashram, Agas while in Second Appeal No. 73 of 2002, the appellant is the original plaintiff who is the president of Shrimad Rajchandra Mumukshu Mandal, which is an association of the followers of Shrimad Rajchandra.

( 3 ) IT appears that the plaintiffs filed the respective suits as according to them, the defendant, i. e. the present respondent, was intentionally committing breach of the rules of the Ashram with specific reference to rule No. 22 (2) and rule No. 18 of the Scheme of the Ashram. Accordingly, relief was sought by the plaintiff seeking declaration and perpetual injunction to the effect that the defendant may not be permitted to enter or live in the properties belonging to the Ashram. The trial Court decreed both the suits, and granted relief as prayed for, against which the defendant, the present respondent herein, preferred appeals before the Court of District Judge, Kheda at Nadiad. The first appellate Court, for the reasons stated in its impugned judgment, remanded the matter to the trial Court with directions to the trial Court to frame additional issues as directed by the first appellate Court. It is against the aforesaid order of remand and direction that these appeals have been preferred.

( 4 ) ON 19th June 2002, this Court (Coram: R. R. Tripathi, J.) admitted the appeals and framed the following four questions of law, which are common in both the appeals:" (A ). IN the facts and circumstances of the case whether the learned First Appellate Court should have remanded the matter back when it was apparent that the respondent had not appeared to defend his case as his application for transfer to a different court had not been considered. (B ). IN the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the learned First Appellate Tribunal should have remanded the matter back when the respondent who is so vigilant to challenge interim injunction granted to the plaintiff upto the Honourable Supreme Court does not remain present at the stage of recording evidence. (C ). IN the facts and circumstances of the case whether the learned First Appellate Tribunal should have remanded the matter back when during the trial the respondent had not challenged the evidence led on behalf of the original plaintiff and as a general rule unchallenged evidence deserves to be believed. (D ). IN the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the learned First Appellate Tribunal should have remanded the matter back while being influenced by the existence of interim injunction granted in favour of the original plaintiff, appellant herein.

( 5 ) THEREAFTER, it appears that at the time of hearing of the Civil Application for interim relief, an attempt had been made by the Court to explore the possibilities of an amicable solution between the parties. In this direction, as directed by the Court, ex-managing trustee, a trustee, a manager, the president of Mumukshu Mandal, Govindbhai Lalbhai Patel, and certain other members of the Mumukshu Mandal were present before the Court. However, ultimately no settlement could be arrived at between the parties, and this is what has been observed by this Court in its order da