JUDGMENT 1. This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner-plaintiff under section 115 of CPC for quashing the findings/observations given by the Third Additional Judge to the Court of First Additional District Judge, Gwalior in the judgment dated 6.3.2013 passed in Civil Suit No.16-A/11. 2. Petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and is involved in publishing the daily newspaper Dainik Bhaskar from Gwalior. Respondent No.1(A) and (B) published a book with a title Kalinayak - Kaliyug Ka Nayak wherein some defamatory statements have been made against the newspaper Dainik Bhaskar and Ramesh Chandra Agrawal, Director of the petitioner company against which the petitioner-plaintiff has fileld a suit against respondent-defendant for declaration and compensation of Rs.8,50,000/-. Copy of the plaint/written statement are filed along with this petition. 3. Learned trial Court after recording the evidence allowed the suit filed by the petitioner but certain unwarranted/illegal and perverse findings have been given by the trial Court which are without jurisdiction and which were not in issue and were not under consideration before the trial Court. Further such findings have been arrived at by misreading the judgment of apex Court passed in Writ Petition No.527/1993 (Civil Appeal No.4782/1996) Dwarika Prasad Agrawal v. B.D. Agrawal and others, reported in 2004(1) JLJ 353 = (2003)6 SCC 230 ]. Paragraph 40 is relevant which has already been reproduced by the trial Court in paragraph 33 of the impugned order. Paragraph 40 of the judgment of apex Court is reproduced below : “We are, therefore, of the opinion that the interest of justice would be subserved if the appeals and the writ petition are allowed and the impugned orders dated 29.6.1992 and 13.11.1992 passed by the High Court as also the order dated 3.9.1992 passed by the first respondent, Registrar, Newspapers for India are quashed. All action taken and all orders passed by the statutory authorities and the civil Courts as referred to herein before shall also stand quashed. As a logical corollary to our order, it must also be held that the writ petition filed by late Bishambhar Dayal Agrawal does not survive and must, therefore, be dismissed. The consequence of this order would be that the parties shall be relegated to the same position in which they were immediately prior to the passing of the order dated 29.6.1992. The consequence of this order would be that the parties shall be relegated to the same position in which they were immediately prior to the passing of the order dated 29.6.1992. All parties statutory authorities and Courts including the civil Courts are directed to act accordingly.” 4. In the light of above, in the present case the moot question for consideration is that whether the trial Court is justified in making the observations in paragraphs 34 to 39 in its judgment? 5. On perusal of paragraph 40 of the judgment of apex Court passed in Writ Petition No.527/1993 it is clear that there is no finding recorded by the apex Court regarding ownership of Dainik Bhaskar in fact the apex Court in its judgment in paragraph 39 has held that the issue which is involved in the case, no finding can be recorded regarding ownership of the newspaper. The relevant extract of the order of apex Court is reproduced below : “We may, however, hasten to add that as at present advised we do not intend to enter into the contention of the petitioners that their fundamental right under Article 19 of Constitution of India had been infringed. This Court would have entered into the question if the facts were undisputed or admitted. The question as regards infringement of fundamental right and that too under Article 19 of the Constitution of India cannot be gone into when the facts are disputed. Whether Dwarika Prasad Agrawal and consequently the substituted petitioners are owners of the newspapers and if so, to what extent being disputed, it cannot be said that by reason of the impugned order dated 3.9.1992 passed by the first respondent herein alone, the fundamental right of the petitioners under Article 19 had been infringed.” 6. Therefore, looking to the finding of apex Court it is clear that the finding given by the trial Court in the impugned judgment regarding ownership and title of Dainik Bhaskar is misconceived and without any basis and hence it is liable to be set aside. 7. Learned trial Court has committed an error in quashing the letter dated 18.6.2004 issued by RNI in compliance of the order dated 7.7.2003 passed by the apex Court according to direction issued by the apex Court in its order dated 7.7.2003. 8. 7. Learned trial Court has committed an error in quashing the letter dated 18.6.2004 issued by RNI in compliance of the order dated 7.7.2003 passed by the apex Court according to direction issued by the apex Court in its order dated 7.7.2003. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further pointed that the aforesaid direction of apex Court was further interpreted by this Court in Writ Petition No.9150/03 by judgment dated 8.12.2003 copy of which is fileld as Annexure-B along with the document at page No.258 wherein this Court has held that while complying with the direction of apex Court in its judgment dated 7.7.2003 RNI being statutory authority was not required to conduct any fresh enquiry regarding ownership and title of Dainik Bhaskar in fact it was only required to restore its record as it prevailed immediately prior to 29.6.1992. Thus, vide letter dated 18.6.2004 the RNI complied with the directives of apex Court dated 7.7.2003 by recording the status regarding ownership and title of Dainik Bhaskar in Gwalior, Indore, Bhopal, Jabalpur and Jhansi as per the entry which prevailed as per its record immediately prior to 26.6.1992. The letter dated 18.6.2004 is direct outcome and fallout of order of apex Court and all the Courts and statutory authority including the trial Court are duty bound to act in aid of the said letter as per Article 144 of Constitution of India. 9. Thus, the validity of letter dated 18.6.2004 could not have been adjudicated by the trial Court in paragraphs 34 to 39 on its judgment in the light of judgment of apex Court dated 7.7.2003 and judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No.9150/2003 dated 8.12.2003. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also pointed out that the validity of the aforesaid letter was sought to be assailed by one Shri Mahesh Prasad Agrawal who was one of the contesting parties before the apex Court in which the order dated 7.7.2003 was passed Mr. Mahesh Prasad Agrawal has preferred the Writ Petition No.5181/2010 which was dismissed by Delhi High Court on the ground of delay and laches vide order dated 6.12.2010. Mahesh Prasad Agrawal has preferred the Writ Petition No.5181/2010 which was dismissed by Delhi High Court on the ground of delay and laches vide order dated 6.12.2010. Against the said order LPA No.182/2011 was filed before the Division Bench of Delhi High Court wherein the Division Bench vide order dated 25.4.2011 has not only confirmed the order of dismissal but also stated that in case if any person aggrieved by the compliance of the order of apex Court, the proper remedy is to file contempt before the Supreme Court and the order of Division Bench of Delhi High Court was confirmed by the apex Court in SLP No.19395(C)/2011 vide order dated 2.1.2012. 11. In the light of judgment passed by the Division Bench of High Court and the apex Court regarding validity of letter dated 18.6.2004 of RNI, the trial Court has made gross error of jurisdiction in adjudicating the validity of letter dated 18.6.2004. In the light of ratio of aforesaid judgment passed in LPA No.182/2010 dated 25.4.2011 by the Division Bench of Delhi High Court which is confirmed by the apex Court, the trial Court had no jurisdiction to record any finding regarding validity of the letter dated 18.6.2004 or the contents therein. Moreover the letter dated 18.6.2004 has to be presumed as valid and the trial Court was also expected to abide by the ownership and status of title of Division Bench as regarded in the said letter because the letter dated 18.6.2004 was issued in compliance of the order of apex Court dated 7.7.2003 and as such the trial Court being subordinate Court is supposed to act in aid of the Supreme Court. Therefore, the finding recorded by the trial Court regarding validity of the letter dated 18.6.2004 is bad in law. In terms of Article 144 of Constitution of India, learned trial Court was bound to treat the said letter as valid and legal holding that ownership and title Dainik Bhaskar Gwalior vests with the petitioner. 12. Therefore, the finding recorded by the trial Court regarding validity of the letter dated 18.6.2004 is bad in law. In terms of Article 144 of Constitution of India, learned trial Court was bound to treat the said letter as valid and legal holding that ownership and title Dainik Bhaskar Gwalior vests with the petitioner. 12. Considering the conspectus of aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and the finding recorded by the trial Court in paragraphs 35 to 39 quashing the letter dated 18.6.2004 by misreading the judgment of apex Court is hereby set aside and expunged and the observations of the trial Court holding that ownership of Dainik Bhaskar vests with the firm M/s. Dwarika Prasad and Brothers is also set aside because as per the letter dated 18.6.2004 status of ownership of Dainik Bhaskar, Gwalior vests with the petitioner. ............