Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.

1. The plaintiff is in second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 10.9.2007 passed by the District Judge, Amritsar who had reversed the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 5.8.2006 by which suit for permanent injunction filed by the plaintiff was decreed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff is the widow of Avtar Singh who was a co-sharer in the land measuring 143 kanals 12 marlas to the extent of 1/3rd share situated at village Uchoke Khurd, Tehsil Baba Bakala, District Amritsar. Avtar Singh died on 10.1.1999. After his death, his l/3rd share devolved upon the plaintiff as per Will dated 22.4.1998 executed by deceased Avtar Singh. The plaintiff had to file suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants/respondents from interfering in the land to the extent of l/3rd share of 143 Kanals 12 Marias on the pretext of realisation of the amount of loan of Rs. 1,50,000/- which is alleged to have been advanced to her deceased husband Avtar Singh.

3. On notice, defendants filed written statement in which besides taking all the technical legal pleas, on merits it was denied that Avtar Singh never took loan from the defendant Bank and fur-ther denied that Avtar Singh had never mortgaged his land in favour of the defendant Bank. It was urged that the plaintiff being the legal representative of Avtar Singh is liable to pay the amount of loan with interest.

4. Replication was not filed. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :

(i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to injunction as prayed for ? OPP.

(ii) Whether the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to decide the suit ? OPD.

(iii) Whether the suit is not maintainable in its present form ? OPD.

(iv) Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the present suit ? OPD.

(v) Relief

To prove her case, plaintiff Darshan Kaur examined herself as PW1 and Man preet Singh as PW2. On the other hand, defendants examined Shankar Singh as DW1, Mukhtiar Singh as DW2, Lakhwinder Singh as DW3 and closed their evidence.

5. After appreciating the evidence of both the parties, the trial Court decreed the suit vide its judgment and decree dated 5.8.2006. Appeal of the defendants, however, was allowed vide judgment and decree dated 10.9.2007 by the learned District Judge, Amritsar. Aggrieved against the judgment and decree of the learned Appellate Court, the appellant has filed the present appeal in which questions of law those have been raised are:

(i) Whether the judgment and decree of the District Judge suffers from perversity being completely contrary to pleadings ?

(ii) Whether merely placing on record photostat copies of documents, liability against a person can be sustained when neither execution of those documents has been proved nor even the original documents are produced in evidence ?

(iii) Whether the judgment and decree of the first Appellate Court holding that Avtar Singh availed loan from the Bank and the amount is recoverable by sale of suit land but the loan was availed by Mukhtiar Singh and as such, the Bank is entitled, can be sustained as the evidence is completely contrary to the pleadings of the parties.

6. Sh. B.R. Mahajan, learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that pleaded case of the respondent Bank is that deceased Avtar Singh had availed loan from the defendant Bank which is sought to be recovered from the present plaintiff. This fact is not denied by the learned counsel for the respondent-Bank who has rather argued that in any case even if the loan was not availed by Avtar Singh deceased, he stood as a guarantor for Mukhtiar Singh, who has not paid the dues of the Bank, therefore, the Bank has a right to recover against the guarantor. It also not in dispute that facing difficulty about the pleadings, the Bank had filed an application to amend the written statement to incorporate the pleadings that the deceased Avtar Singh was not the loanee but th