JUDGMENT 1. - Instant Second Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 11.10.1993 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Nimbahera in Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1992 whereby he affirmed the judgment and decree dated 24.6.1988 passed by the learned Additional Collector, Nimbahera in Civil Suit No. 94 of 1978. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the judgments given by both the courts-below. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants Mr. K.C. Samdariya urged before me that both the courts-below have not correctly interpreted the judgment given by this Court on 25.10.1972 by virtue of which, the suit was remanded back for trial. Irrespective of the judgment given by the learned Judges constituting Division Bench on 25.10.1972, both the courts-below decided the suit only on the question of limitation with reference to acknowledgement which is not sustainable. 4. It is next contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that Ex. 6 written statement which has been relied upon as one of the documents for extending the benefit of acknowledgement to the plaintiff-respondent requires reappraisal by this Court. 5. Before addressing the aforesaid argument advanced on behalf of the learned counsel for the appellants, it would be expedient to state few facts which would be relevant for just and effective decision of the case. 6. As a matter of fact, the present suit for redemption of mortgage was filed on 12.9.1950 by the plaintiff-respondent. After service of summons, the defendant-appellants filed a detailed written statement. 7. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, as many as 16 issues were framed by the learned trial Court. One of the issues about suit being barred by limitation was treated to be a preliminary issue. 8. The learned trial Court dismissed the suit on the preliminary issue holding it to be barred by limitation. 9. Aggrieved against dismissal of the suit on the point of limitation, an appeal was filed by the plaintiff-respondent before the learned District Judge, which was allowed on 22.7.1960 and the case was remanded back to the learned trial Court for de novo trial on merit with a direction to decide all 16 issues together. 10. After remand, the learned trial Court decided all the issues on 16.2.1961. The learned trial Court decreed the suit for redemption of mortgage on 16.2.1961. 11. 10. After remand, the learned trial Court decided all the issues on 16.2.1961. The learned trial Court decreed the suit for redemption of mortgage on 16.2.1961. 11. Aggrieved against the judgment and decree dated 16.2.1961, the defendant-appellants filed an appeal before the learned District Judge, which was dismissed on 17.5.1961 and the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court was affirmed by the learned first appellate Court holding that limitation for filing of the suit for redemption is 60 years. 12. Aggrieved against the judgment and decree dated 17.5.1961 passed by the learned District Judge, a second appeal was preferred by the defendant-appellants before this Court, which was dismissed on 25.9.1967 on all issues. The judgments and decree passed by both the courts-below on all 16 issues were affirmed holding that limitation for filing of suit for redemption of mortgage is of 60 years. 13. Aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 473 of 1961 on 25.9.1967, a Special Appeal was filed before the Division Bench of this Court, wherein on 11.11.1971 it was found by the learned Judges constituting Division Bench that limitation applicable in the present case is to be computed according to Art. 7 of the Kanoon Mayad Rajya Mewar (hereinafter referred to as Act No. 2 of Samvat 1988) 14. It is deducible from the order dated 11.11.1971 that while the learned Judges constituting Division Bench came to the conclusion that Art. 7 of Act No. 2 of Samvat 1988 is applicable in the present facts and circumstances of the case, the limitation prescribed was held to be 15 years instead of 60 years as held by the courts-below. It is evident that at this stage the learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondents invited the attention of learned Judges constituting Division Bench of this Court to the effect that under section 14 of Act No. 2 of Samvat 1988 there is provision of acknowledgement for extending the benefit of limitation. It appears that the learned Judges constituting Division Bench allowed the plaintiff-respondents to move an application for amendment which was made and was allowed on 25.10.1972. It appears that the learned Judges constituting Division Bench allowed the plaintiff-respondents to move an application for amendment which was made and was allowed on 25.10.1972. The judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court on 25.10.1972 remanding the case on this part alone is reproduced below for ready reference : "We have given our anxious consideration to the question and we are persuaded to hold that the judgments of this Court relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant had taken the view that the period of limitation was 60 years and, therefore, he did not plead the grounds for extension of the period of limitation. Ordinarily, we may not have allowed an amendment at such a late stage but the mis-apprehension in the minds of the legal advisors of the plaintiff must be held to be bona fide. The documents on which acknowledgement is sought are already on record and there is no danger of evidence being tailored now. In the interest of justice such an amendment should be allowed and we do so ..... ..... ....... The case is now remitted to the trial Court. The amended plaint is already on the record of the case and it shall be sent to the trial Court. Bhera is directed to file the written statement on the 18.12.1972 and thereafter the trial Court after framing the necessary issue and recording evidence, if any, on the question of acknowledgement only decide the suit as early as possible." 15. The main thrust of the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants before me is that by virtue of the aforesaid judgment dated 25.10.1972, the learned trial Court was expected to decide all 16 issues once again. I am not impressed with the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants, therefore, it is repelled. 16. In my humble opinion, a close scrutiny of the judgment given by the learned Judges constituting Division Bench on 25.10.1972 had not set aside all the findings recorded on all the issues by the courts-below. The interpretation put forth by the learned counsel for the appellants is not correct interpretation of the decision rendered by the Division Bench on 25.10.1972 that by virtue of the said judgment, the findings on all the issues were set aside. The interpretation put forth by the learned counsel for the appellants is not correct interpretation of the decision rendered by the Division Bench on 25.10.1972 that by virtue of the said judgment, the findings on all the issues were set aside. To mind, it cannot be a correct interpretation of the judgment dated 25.10.1972 given by the Division Bench as argued by the learned counsel for the appellants. Obviously in directing that the findings given by the courts-below are set-aside means that, that finding which was canvassed before the learned Judges constituting Division Bench. It is evident from the order passed by the Division Bench on 11.11.1971 as well as from the judgment dated 25.10.1972 that only question argued before them was about the question of limitation with reference to acknowledgment as envisaged under section 14 of the Act No. 2 of Samvat 1988. The findings on the remaining issues were neither challenged nor argued before the learned Judges constituting Division Bench, hence, they were not called upon to consider and decide the remaining issues except question of limitation and acknowledgment as envisaged under Act No. 2 of Samvat 1988. I am of the view that the learned Judges constituting Division Bench while allowing the amendment in the plaint given liberty to the predecessor in interest of the present legal representatives of deceased-appellant Bhera to amend his written statement by setting out particular grounds opposing the principle of acknowledgment which was found to be extendable to the plaintiff-respondents. 17. The aforesaid interpretation finds support from the judgment dated 25.10.1972 passed by the learned Judges constituting Division Bench wherein it is clearly mentioned that the learned trial Court, after framing the necessary issues and recording evidence, if any on the question of acknowledgment only decide the suit as early as possible. The aforesaid interpretation given by this Court further finds support from the observations made by the Division Bench in their judgment dated 25.10.1972 to the effect that the documents on which acknowledgment was pleaded were found to be already on record and there was no danger of evidence being tailored after remand. 18. As regard re-appraisal of Ex. 6, suffice it to say that reappraisal of Ex. 6 is not permissible in Second Appeal. 18. As regard re-appraisal of Ex. 6, suffice it to say that reappraisal of Ex. 6 is not permissible in Second Appeal. It is public document within the meaning of Section 74 of the Evidence Act hence both the courts-below have committed no error of law or procedure in relying on Ex. 6. 19. The findings on the question of acknowledgement recorded by both the courts-below are based on evidence on record. Both the courts-below have committed no substantial error of law or procedure in extending the benefit of acknowledgment to the plaintiff-respondents within the meaning of Section 14 of Act No. 2 of Samvat 1988. 20. The instant second appeal is concluded by concurrent findings of fact and no substantial question of law is involved, therefore, it is liable to be dismissed in limine. In view of what has been discussed above, the instant second appeal is hereby dismissed in limine.Second Appeal Rejected. *******