Judgment : 1. The substantial question of law arising for a decision in this appeal is whether in the light of Exts.A4 and A5, the lower appellate court was right in remitting the case to the trial court for a decision. 2. Appellant/plaintiff filed O.S.No.666 of 2003 in the Munsiff's Court, Ernakulam for a decree for prohibitory injunction. She claimed that she got the plaint A schedule as per Ext.A1, partition deed No.1363 of 1982 (as B schedule therein) and that at the time of Ext.A1, a pathway was provided through the rest of property for access to the plaint A schedule and other items. According to the appellant, total width of that way described in the plaint B schedule is 15 feet (about 22 links) and the length is 250 feet. She claimed that plaint B schedule is a low lying area and hence it gets inundated during rainy season. She wanted to raise level of southern portion of plaint B schedule. Respondents/defendants attempted to reduce width of the pathway. Hence the suit. 3. Respondents 1 to 4, 6 and 7 while admitting that the appellant has right of way as per Ext.A1, disputed width of plaint B schedule claimed by the appellant. They also contended that plaint B schedule is not a pathway referred to in Ext.A1, partition deed. 4. Trial court, relying on the oral and documentary evidence found in favour of the case pleaded by the appellant and granted a decree. Aggrieved, respondents filed A.S.No.76 of 2007. Learned second Additional District Judge, Ernakulam allowed the appeal by way of remand which is under challenge in this appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that findings entered by the learned Additional District Judge are erroneous. According to the learned counsel, even in the proof affidavit of DW1 (first respondent) fact of payment of certain amount to Valsan for widening of the way is admitted. In the circumstance the lower appellate court was not right in setting aside judgment and decree of the trial court. 6. Learned counsel for the contesting respondents would argue that Exts.A4 and A5 are introduced only in the evidence. There is no mention of those documents or transactions in the plaint. It is also argued that Ext.A4 is not admitted. 7. It is not disputed that as per Ext.A1, a right of access is given to the appellant and others. 6. Learned counsel for the contesting respondents would argue that Exts.A4 and A5 are introduced only in the evidence. There is no mention of those documents or transactions in the plaint. It is also argued that Ext.A4 is not admitted. 7. It is not disputed that as per Ext.A1, a right of access is given to the appellant and others. But, as agreed by both sides width of the way is not mentioned in Ext.A1. Among the respondents, there was a partition effected as per document No.2681 of 1992 where provision was made for a pathway having width of 18 links (as H schedule). That way was to be towards west of the way referred to in Ext.A1. 8. Ext.A4 is an agreement allegedly executed between the parties in Ext.A1 a few months after Ext.A1. Ext.A4, agreement is to the effect that the parties in Ext.A1 agreed to widen the way into a way having width of 18 links. For that purpose, they were to purchase some property belonging to Valsan. 9. Ext.A5 is stated to be an agreement executed between the parties herein and the said Valsan for purchase of the land for the purpose referred to in Ext.A4. 10. The lower appellate court, referring to Exts.A4 and A5 observed that version of the respondents that width of the way referred to in Ext.A1 is 5 links is quite probable. According to lower appellate court, if width of the way provided as per Ext.A1 was 15 feet (22 links), there was no necessity to widen that way as stated in Ext.A4 and A5. Lower appellate court also observed that Exts.A5 ought to have been proved by examining Valsaon or the attestor to it. In that view of the matter, judgment and decree of the trial court were set aside and the case was remitted to the appellate court for fresh decision. 11. Since Ext.A4 is disputed by the respondents and Ext.A5 is not proved by examining Valsan and/or the attestor as the case may be, it is not possible to make any reference to Exts.A4 and A5. 12. I am inclined to think that for a proper adjudication of the dispute involved, it was necessary that Exts.A4 and A5 are properly proved. 13. 12. I am inclined to think that for a proper adjudication of the dispute involved, it was necessary that Exts.A4 and A5 are properly proved. 13. At the same time, I am inclined to think that finding entered by the lower appellate court as regards probability of version of the respondents regarding width of the way provided as per Ext.A1 should go. Having heard the learned counsel on both sides, I am inclined to think that findings entered by both the courts below on the disputed issues must go leaving it open to the parties to agitate all the issues involved afresh, if necessary, after amendment of their pleadings. 14. The substantial question of law framed is answered accordingly. Resultantly the appeal is disposed of with the following directions: (i) All findings entered by the trial and lower appellate courts as to the contentious issues are set aside leaving it open to the trial court to decide the issues afresh after giving the parties opportunity to adduce evidence and if necessary to amend their pleadings. (ii) Trial court is directed to dispose of the suit as early as possible. (iii) Parties shall suffer their cost in the appeal. All pending interlocutory applications will stand dismissed.