1. - Heard learned counsel.

2. This second appeal of the defendant is directed against the concurrent decree of two courts below in the suit for Redemption of Mortgage in respect of suit shop situated at Kacholiya Building, Bhilwara. The description of the suit shop is given in para no.1 of the plaint as well as in para no.1 of the impugned judgment of learned trial court. On the Eastern side of the suit shop is a public way, whereas, on the Western side, there is a residential house of the plaintiff and on the Northern and Southern side, the other shops of the plaintiff are stated to be situated. In Ex.1, mortgage deed dated 6/10/1990 registered with Sub Register, it is stated that said suit shop was given on mortgage to the defendant in lieu of Rs. 10,000/- advanced by the defendant to the plaintiff.

3. Upon the suit being filed for redemption of mortgage, the defendant appellant took the defence that said mortgage was in respect of other shop, which was lying vacant and stamp on which the mortgage deed - Ex.1 was written, bore the signature of defendant Ashok Kumar on a blank paper and plaintiff had got the said mortgage deed typed later on and got the same registered without knowledge of the defendant. The defendant appellant took the plea that the suit shop claimed to be under mortgage deed was in fact given on rent to his brother-Manoj Kumar and his brother Manoj Kumar was paying monthly rent to the son of plaintiff, Mr. Naresh, a boy of 151/2 years.

4. Learned trial court in its judgment dated 21/8/2008 while decreeing the suit of redemption of mortgage in favour of the plaintiff found while deciding the issue nos. 1, 2 and 4 simultaneously that there was no rent note in favour of brother of the defendant, Ashok Kumar, namely, Manoj Kumar in respect of said shop and in fact said Manoj Kumar was carrying on the business under the name and style of Fashion Queue in the suit shop itself. The learned trial court also found that there was contradiction in the defence of various defence witnesses about the rent of the shop in question to be Rs. 700/-, Rs. 800/- and Rs. 900/-. Since the defendant claimed that monthly rent of shop in question was being paid to Naresh Kumar, who was studying in 10th -11th standard at the relevant point of time, the learned trial court also drew adverse inference against defendant that he ought to have produced Naresh Kumar in the witness box & in the absence of same, the defendant Ashok Kumar was liable to handover the possession of the suit shop in question upon repayment of Rs. 10,000/- by the plaintiff for redemption of mortgage of the suit shop in question.

5. The appellate court affirmed the said decree while dismissing the defendant's appeal No. 66/2008 by its judgment dated 30/5/2011 discussing the aforesaid evidence again.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant-defendant, Mr. N.K.Rastogi relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Laxman & Ors. v. Banshi lal & Anr.- 2011 (2) DNJ (Raj.) 881 submitted that finding on three issues could not be returned jointly by the learned trial court and each issue should have been separately decided by it. Similarly, according to the learned counsel for the appellant-defendant, the appellate court has also fallen in error in not deciding the issues again re-appreciating the evidence as mandated under Order 41, Rule 31 CPC.

7. Having heard the learned counsel, this Court is of the opinion that no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal. In the judgment cited at the bar before this Court, the coordinate bench upheld the remand order where the first appellate court found that trial court did not decide each issues separately by recording finding separately on each issues. The appellate court had remanded the matter back to the learned trial court, which was challenged before this Court and dismissing the misc. appeal, this Court held that such remand order could not faulted. This judgment is apparently not applicable t