This is a second appeal arises out of a suit for permanent injunction. Defendant is the respondent who has lost in both Courts below.

Being confronted with the situation that the concurrent judgments of two Courts is based on a concurrent finding Shri Sapre rightly suggested that he can only pray for remand. However, in my view, remand is exception and not the rule. Even in second appeal it is necessary to examine if a case for remand is made out and then allow prayer in that regard. This suit was instituted in the year 1974 and almost 20 years are going soon to elapse. Whether the parties to be made to suffer another ordeal is the question which must weigh with me in deciding if remand is warranted or justified.

The only contention which Shri Sapre has very forcefully and rightly pressed is that appellate judgment is perfunctory. His Contention is that the entire evidence is not discussed and finding reached in regard to validity of deposition of two witnesses PW 3 and DW 3. That is also correct. However, reference, the lower Appellate Court has made, to the title deeds of the two parties and that cannot be ignored.

The land, it is admitted case of both sides belong