JUDGMENT P.K. PALLI, J.—This second appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs, who are aggrieved against the judgment of reversal. Suit claiming a decree for permanent injunction filed by the plaintiffs, was decreed by the learned trial Court. Appeal filed by the defendants challenging it, stands allowed and this is how the plaintiffs are in second appeal. Parties hereinafter in this judgment shall be referred to as plaintiffs and defendants. 2. The dispute pertains to a path, which according to the plaintiffs starts from Khasra No. 943 and after passing through Khasra Nos. 794, 818 and 820 touches the houses of the plaintiffs in Khasra Nos. 823 and 830. For better understanding, the location of the path, Musavi Ex. P-1 and plan prepared by the Kanungo Ex. PW1/A as well as Ex. D-1 placed on record by the defendants can be looked into with advantage. 3. This is also not denied that the dispute in respect of the path alleged by the plaintiffs is in respect of Khasra No. 818, which has been gifted by one v Sagar Chand to the defendants. According to the plaintiff, they have acquired right of easement by way of prescription on the passage in dispute and this passage is claimed by them to have been build by their ancestors and has been in use for over hundred years. 4. The defendants while contesting the claim put-forth by the plaintiffs have denied what has been said in the plaint. The passage in dispute is being claimed by them to be their private property on which they have the exclusive right. It has been further started that the plaintiffs have a different approach to their houses which connects it with the National High way. 5. Learned trial Court on appreciation of material placed on record by the parties has granted decree to the plaintiffs as prayed for and defendants have been restrained from interfering in the enjoyment of the disputed passage through Khasra No. 818 and further blocking it in any manner whatsoever. 6. A mandate has also been issued to the defendants to remove the obstruction so raised by them which comprises of a Dhara as reflected in Aks Tatima Ex. PW-10/A and to restore the passage in question to its original position. 7. 6. A mandate has also been issued to the defendants to remove the obstruction so raised by them which comprises of a Dhara as reflected in Aks Tatima Ex. PW-10/A and to restore the passage in question to its original position. 7. When the matter was in appeal before the learned first appellate Court and before passing the judgment, efforts were made for an amicable settlement between the parties which unfortunately could not be arrived at. Vide order dated October 29, 1990, the learned Court listed the case for the purposes of spot inspection as well as to decide the matter amicably. For this purpose, the parties were directed to be present on the spot at 10.00 a.m. on 31st October, 1990. 8. On 31st October, 1990 the spot was inspected, where after case was ordered to be listed for final arguments on 7th November, 1990. The appeal was heard on that day and was allowed. Shri Bhupender Gupta, learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiffs has drawn my attention to the inspection note prepared by the learned District Judge as well as the site plan prepared by him which is marked TV on the record of the appellate Court. 9. Shri Gupta has further raised number of arguments before this Court and then it is sought to be argued that the judgment and decree passed by the learned First Appellate Court is liable to be set aside as the evidence on record has been mis-read and mis-construed. Shri G.C. Gupta, learned Counsel appearing for the defendants, has tried to support the judgment by adopting the reasons given in it and is further at pains to contend that even if the report and the plan are not taken into consideration, the appeal be heard on other points and he would be able to show that the suit filed by the plaintiffs is liable to be dismissed as no right of easement claimed by them stands established on record. 10. Before appreciating the other contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the parlies, I notice that the learned District Judge has pointed out in the report that from the cow-shed of the defendants a new path has been constructed in the steep form breadth of which is 2 to 3 feet and this passage has been constructed to carry grass, etc. for their cattle. for their cattle. Unfortunately, this passage has not been shown in the plan prepared by the learned District Judge, which is marked A1 on the record. It may be further noticed that two different passages have been reflected in the report, one which is presently in dispute and the other exactly down below and both the passages are shown to be starting from one place. The disputed passage in the plan ends at the houses of the defendants, whereas the other passage shows touches the houses of the plaintiffs. 11. Strangely enough, it has been shown in the plan that there are fields of the defendants above and below the houses of the plaintiffs. When asked, Shri G.C. Gupta, learned Counsel for the defendants, conceds that there are no fields of the defendants on either side of the houses of the plaintiffs and this has been incorrectly recorded by the learned Court. 12. The inspection report further records that the spot was inspected on 31st October, 1990 and the plaintiffs were not present. The defendants and their Counsel were of course present at the spot. This would further show that the inspection note as well as the site plan has been prepared in absence of the plaintiffs as well as their Counsel and without their assistance. Thus, the Court in the given situation was left with the assistance as provided by the defendants for the purposes of identification of the passage in dispute and in respect of the surrounding areas. 13. Impugned judgment further reveals that the report as well as the statement made by the Kanungo examined as PW-10 has not been accepted on the ground that the said witness has denied the existence of another passage. 14. Assuming that there is another alternative passage leading to the houses of the plaintiffs, the question which will have to be examined would be in respect of the easementary right by way of prescription over the disputed passage by claimed by the plaintiffs, Once they are able to establish that right they cannot be obstructed from passing through that passage despite the fact that an alternative passage for going to their houses exists. 15. I further find from the order dated 29th October, 1990 that the site was to be inspected by the learned Court to find out the possibility of an amicable settlement. 15. I further find from the order dated 29th October, 1990 that the site was to be inspected by the learned Court to find out the possibility of an amicable settlement. The plaintiffs and their Counsel were admittedly not present, the question of an amicable settlement in the given situation could not arise. Be that as it may, the Court thereafter heard the appeal on merits and allowed it. 16. An impression is caused in the mind of this Court that the judgment under attack stands influenced by spot inspection and the plan prepared by the learned Court. As already noticed above, the plan as well as the report on the face of it are liable to be rejected as no clear picture emerges out of its reading as well as interpretation. 17. It may be made clear that the Courts particularly the Appellate Courts should refrain from visiting and inspecting the site in dispute except when a case is made out that without spot inspection, it will not be possible to decide the case or the appeal one way or the other. The Appellate Court is expected to appraise the entire evidence on record placed by the parties and if thereafter, the Court finds itself in difficulty which can be resolved by a spot inspection, it should be carried out for the purposes of appreciating the respective pleas taken by the parties and in order to examine the ground realities. 18. As I notice, the case was put up for spot inspection in order to arrive at an amicable settlement after examining the site in dispute and its location. I thus refrain myself from examining other points raised by the learned Counsel for the parties lest it may amount to an expression of opinion for the view I am hereinafter taking in this case. 19. In the given situation, there are two options left to this Court, one is to re-appraise the evidence as a Court of fact after hearing the learned Counsel and the second is to remit the case back to the First Appellate Court for decision in accordance with law. 19. In the given situation, there are two options left to this Court, one is to re-appraise the evidence as a Court of fact after hearing the learned Counsel and the second is to remit the case back to the First Appellate Court for decision in accordance with law. If I adopt the first course, one of the parties is likely to be deprived of the remedy of statutory appeal Still further it is not the domain of this Court in second appeal to re-appraise evidence, the same being the function of the First Appellate Court which is a Court of fact. I thus proceed to choose the second alternative. 20. In view of what has been said above, the judgment and decree passed by the learned First Appellate Court is ordered to be set aside. The appeal is allowed and the case is remanded to the learned First Appellate Court for decision afresh in accordance with law in the light of the observations made above in this judgment. It is hereby made clear that the learned Court shall not taken into consideration the inspection report as well as the plan prepared by its predecessor for any purpose whatsoever. 21. Parties through their learned Counsel are directed to appear before the Court concerned on April 8, 1998. Records are ordered to be sent back forthwith. Every possible effort is directed to be made to dispose of the, appeal, preferably, within six months from today. Costs to follow the event. Order accordingly.