The first appellate court must reconsider the appeal and the remitted amendment and additional-evidence applications.

The plaintiff sued for a declaration of title to four schedule properties and an injunction, including protection of access along a claimed 12-foot road described as running from Sy. No. 7/1A to Sy. No. 7/2B.

The trial court decreed the suit, finding on the commissioner’s report that the road in fact ran from Sy. No. 7/2B to Sy. No. 7/2A and joined a 30-foot road.

The first appellate court set aside only the injunction concerning that road, reasoning that the trial court had granted relief not sought in the plaint; it otherwise left the decree intact.

In the second appeal, the plaintiff challenged that decision and filed applications to amend the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 CPC and to adduce additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC.

1. Whether the trial court could grant a permanent injunction concerning a road running between Sy. Nos. 7/2B and 7/2A when the plaint described the road as running from Sy. No. 7/1A to Sy. No. 7/2B.

2. Whether the plaintiff could obtain an injunction without amending the decree in O.S. No. 103/2000 to reflect the access route identified by the commissioner.

3. Whether the plaintiff’s applications to amend the plaint and adduce additional evidence should be allowed, and how they should be dealt with in the appeal.

The Court proceeded under Section 100 CPC, which governs second appeals on substantial questions of law, and considered the applications under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, concerning amendment of pleadings, and Order XLI Rule 27 CPC, concerning additional evidence in appeal.

The Court did not determine the substantive merits of either application; it held that they should be considered by the first appellate court in accordance with law.

The first appellate court had set aside the road injunction because the route established by the commissioner differed from the route pleaded, and the plaintiff had not amended the plaint.

In the second appeal, the High Court considered the pending amendment and additional-evidence applications, noting that the respondents had not contested them or the appeal.

Rather than decide the applications or the road-related substantial questions itself, the Court concluded that the first appellate court should reconsider the appeal with those applications before it, while leaving all rival contentions open and expressing no view on the merits.

The plaintiff’s applications under Order VI Rule 17 and Order XLI Rule 27 CPC were also remitted to that court for consideration and disposal; they were not granted on their merits by the High Court.

The two originally framed substantial questions of law were left undecided as unnecessary for disposal of the appeal.