Permanent Injunction–Decree of–First appeal–First Appellate Court remanded back the matter in term of Order 41, Rule 23A–View of High Court that the suit was for the bare injunction, therefore, the exercise to identity of the property with reference to the ownership was not justified–Parties are
related to each other and property was commonly enjoyed by their predecessors–Dispute arose when the plaintiff sought to construct a wall–Location of the share enjoyed by the parties is referred and the right as claimed by the plaintiff is disputed–Issues as regard to identification of property were neither challenged nor any application for amendment or to strike out the issues was filed–Held, High Court was not justified in setting aside the conclusion of first appellate Court.
