Hon’ble Anil Kumar, J.—Shri P. P. Chaudhary, learned counsel for the appellants, Shri M. D. Singh Shekhar, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Vikash Budhwar, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record.

2. In nutshell, the controversy involved in the present case is that the plaintiff-respondents filed a suit for permanent injunction registered as Regular Suit No. 160 of 1999 inter alia stating therein that Khasra No. 49 Rakba 10-5-0 belongs to them, recorded as Bhumidhar in the Revenue record. They had given a permission to Shri Chhuttan/thekedar to use the part of land as a way for the purpose of mining in the adjacent land. So, the defendant may be restrained from interfering in any manner on the land in dispute.

3. On the basis of the pleadings/evidence on record, the trial Court passed a judgment and decree dated 19.1.2001that the defendants-appellants should not interfere in the possession of the plaintiffs over the land in dispute but restrain the thekedar Sri Chuttan from using the way of Khasra Plot No. 49 for the mining purpose.

4. Aggrieved by the said facts, the defendants-appellants filed a Civil Appeal No. 106 of 2003, dismissed by judgmen