Hon’ble Suneet Kumar, J.—The plaintiff-applicants have approached this Court assailing the judgment and order dated 3 December 2015 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 5, Bijnor in Appeal No. 15 of 2015 and Appeal No. 16 of 2015 (Pawan Singh and others v. Musharrat Ali and others), whereby, the order passed by the trial Court granting injunction to the applicants has been set aside.

2. The defendant-respondents are owner of agricultural land being Khasra No. 149 ad-measuring 2.659 hectare, which was granted to the applicants No. 1 and 2 by father of respondent Nos. 1 to 6 through a contract (Theka) dated 26 August 2004 for a period of 10 years for setting up brickkiln. The contract is an unregistered document. In the plaint it was averred that upon expiry of the term of the lease, the applicants with the consent of the respondents, enhanced the rent to Rs. 18000/- and renewed the lease till 2024. It was further contended that the applicants are in possession over the property. The respondents contested by filing written statement and counter claim. The trial Court allowed the interim injunction application restraining the respondents from interfering with the suit property. In the written statement/counter claim it was contended that upon expiry of the term of the lease, respondents have leased the property for five years to the third respondent at Rs. 1,40,000/- per annum. The learned trial Court passed an injunction order dated 19 February 2015 restraining the respondents from interfering in the peaceful possession of the petitioners and rejected the injunction application filed by the respondents alongwith counter claim. Two appeals were preferred by the respondents, which was heard and decided by a common order which is impugned in the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution.

3. During pendency of the appeal, an order of status quo was operating.

4. By the impugned order, interim injunction granted by the trial Court, has been set aside.

5. Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that the appellate Court committed an error in deciding an issue under Order 43 C.P.C. which has yet not been adjudicated upon by the trial Court. The document in issue being a lease-deed could not be held to be a forged or manufactured document by the appellate Court without following the procedure prescribed under Order 13 C.P.C. i.e. without issue being framed and evidence being led by the parties.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the applicants are licensee, the property in dispute was given on a license to the applicants for a period of 10 years on a yearly sum. Upon expiry of the term, license has been given to the third respondent, therefore, it is sought to be urged that injunction could not have been granted against a true owner and licnesee would have no right on the suit property. Learned trial Court committed an error by entering into the disputed question specially, pertaining to a document, rather, original of which was not produced by either of the parties.

7. The trial Court in the order noted that the respondents in para-17 and 24 of their counter claim clearly asserted that the applicants are in possession of the suit property. It was also averred that the property was given on 10 years contract for brickkiln, in these circumstances, the trial Court granted injunction. The respondents obtained a document of the alleged agreement under the Right to Information Act from the Tax Authorities during the pendency of the appeal. The appellate Court relying upon the document was of the opinion that the deed relied upon by the plaintiff-applicants was a forged document, thereby, reversed the injunction order. The appellate Court under Order 43 C.P.C. exceeded its jurisdiction by returning a conclusive finding on the nature of the document, which did not exist before the trial Court. The trial Court relying upon the affirmative assertion made in the counter claim held tha