Without reference and discussion no finding be given =There is no reference and discussion by the High Court about those documents which were ignored by the Courts below. =Whether the lower courts ignored to appreciate the documents in proper perspective on behalf of the plaintiff in O.S.No.22/82 and also further committed an error with respect to the identity of the suit property?" The High Court reversed the order pertaining to the identification of the property by upholding that the property purchased by the respondent is different from the property which is the suit schedule property in O.S.No.31/82. The substantial question of law framed is to the effect that the lower courts failed to appreciate certain facts while deciding the point pertaining to the identification of the property. There is no reference and discussion by the High Court about those documents which were ignored by the Courts below. The High Court reversed the findings of the First Appellant Court by re- appreciating the evidence. We are also informed by the learned counsel for the appellant that the counsel for the appellant was not present when the matter was heard by the High Court. In view of the aforesaid, we set aside the judgment of the High Court and remand the matter back to the High Court for fresh consideration.

1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).     687-688 of 2013


ABDUL SUBAN SAB @ PYARE SAB (D)
BY LRS.& ORS.      Appellant(s)
                                VERSUS
CHIDANANDA & ORS.                           Respondent(s)
O R D E R
The   appellants   herein   filed   O.S.   No.31/82   for
permanent   injunction.   The   respondents   filed
O.S.No.22/82   for   declaration   of   title   and   permanent
injunction.   The   Trial   Court   decreed   the   suit   of   the
appellant   and   granted   permanent   injunction.
O.S.No.22/82   filed   by   the   respondent   was   dismissed.
The   common   judgment   in   O.S.Nos.22/82   and   31/82   was
affirmed by the First Appellate Court.  The contention
of the respondents that the suit schedule property was
not identifiable was rejected by the Trial Court.  The
said finding was upheld by the First Appellate Court.
The   High   Court   framed   a   substantial   question   of   law
which is reproduced hereunder:

2
"1.   Whether   the   lower   courts
ignored   to   appreciate   the   documents   in
proper   perspective   on   behalf   of   the
plaintiff   in   O.S.No.22/82   and   also
further   committed   an   error   with   respect
to the identity of the suit property?"
The   High   Court   reversed   the   order   pertaining
to   the   identification   of   the   property   by   upholding
that   the   property   purchased   by   the   respondent   is
different from the property which is the suit schedule
property   in   O.S.No.31/82.       The   substantial   question
of   law   framed   is   to   the   effect   that   the   lower   courts
failed to appreciate certain facts while deciding the
point   pertaining   to   the   identification   of   the
property. There is no reference and discussion by the
High Court about those documents which were ignored by
the   Courts   below.     The   High   Court   reversed   the
findings   of   the   First   Appellant   Court   by   re-
appreciating   the   evidence.     We   are   also   informed   by
the learned counsel for the appellant that the counsel
for the appellant was not present when the matter was
heard by the High Court.
In   view   of   the   aforesaid,   we   set   aside   the
judgment of the High Court and remand the matter back
to   the   High   Court   for   fresh   consideration.       We   have
not expressed any view on the merits of the matter and

3
all points are left open to be considered by the High
Court.
As   the   suit   was   filed   in   the   year   1982,   we
request   the   High   Court   to   decide   the   appeals   at   the
earliest.
The   appeals   are   disposed   of   accordingly.
Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
         
.................... J
(L.NAGESWARA RAO )
.................... J 
( HEMANT GUPTA ) 
NEW DELHI; 
06 th
 August, 2019

4
ITEM NO.108               COURT NO.10               SECTION IV-A
               S U P R E M E  C O U R T  O F  I N D I A
                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Civil Appeal  No(s).687-688/2013
ABDUL SUBAN SAB @ PYARE SAB (D) BY LRS. & ORS.     Appellant(s)
                                VERSUS
CHIDANANDA & ORS.                                  Respondent(s)

Date : 06-08-2019 These appeals were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NAGESWARA RAO
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
For Appellant(s) Mr. Anupam Lal Das,Sr.Adv.
Mr. B.Vishwanath Bhandarkar,Adv.
Mr. Karunakar Mahalik,Adv.
Mr. Sarbendra Kumar Adv.
Mr. N.K.Naik,Adv.
                    Mr. V.N.Raghupathy, AOR
                 
For Respondent(s) Mr. N.D.B.Raju,Adv.
                    Mr. M. A. Chinnasamy, AOR
Mr. Bharathi Raju,Adv.
                   
          UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
                             O R D E R
  The   appeals   are   disposed   of   in   terms   of   the
signed   order.   Pending   application(s),   if   any,   stand
disposed of.
     (B.Parvathi)                          (Sunil Kumar Rajvanshi)
     Court Master                              Court Master
(Signed order is placed on the file)