JUDGMENT 1. - This second appeal under Section 100 CPC is directed against the judgment and decree dated 05.08.2006 passed by Additional District Judge No.1, Udaipur, whereby, the judgment and decree dated 21.04.1998 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Udaipur City (North), Udaipur has been upheld. 2. The facts in brief may be noticed thus:- the respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction against the appellant-defendant pertaining to the plots situated at Sunderva, Glass Factory Area, Udaipur; it was, inter alia, claimed that the plaintiff purchase the plots vide sale deed dated 11.08.1981 and got the same sub-divided on 18.08.1981 and since then the plots were in her possession and ownership; it was alleged that though defendant has nothing to do with the said plots, he was seeking to trespass on the said plots and as plaintiff is a lady, she cant fight with the defendant; attempt in this regard was made on 01.05.1990, which was thwart; it is not possible for the plaintiff to keep a constant vigil at the suit plots and, therefore, injunction was sought against the defendant seeking restraint against trespassing on the plots in question and dispossessing the plaintiff. 3. A written statement was filed by the appellant-defendant, inter alia, contending that the plot No.4 does not belong to the plaintiff as she has sold the same and has given possession to the defendant; defendant is in possession; there is no dispute regarding plot No.3 as there is a separate boundary wall regarding plot No.3 and for plot No.4 defendant has constructed the boundary wall, on which there is a gate and his name plate; plaintiff is not in possession of the said plot; the suit land is agricultural and, therefore, the civil court does not have jurisdiction to hear the suit. Rest of the allegations made in the plaint regarding attempted trespass, were denied. 4. The trial court framed as many as three issues and decided issue relating to jurisdiction against the defendant as preliminary issue on 24.03.1995 and held that the civil court had jurisdiction to hear the suit. On behalf of the plaintiff, two witnesses were examined and on behalf of the defendant, four witnesses were examined. 5. 4. The trial court framed as many as three issues and decided issue relating to jurisdiction against the defendant as preliminary issue on 24.03.1995 and held that the civil court had jurisdiction to hear the suit. On behalf of the plaintiff, two witnesses were examined and on behalf of the defendant, four witnesses were examined. 5. After hearing the parties and analyzing the oral and documentary evidence, the trial court noticed that the alleged agreement/sale deed dated 28.01.1990, which was unstamped and unregistered, was held by the trial court that the same could not be used for proving the title but the defendant was entitled to produce the document for collateral purpose for proving his possession, however, the said order passed by the trial court was reversed in S.B. Civil Revision Petition No.632/1996 decided on 25.09.1996, whereby, the high court set aside the order of the trial court and held that the document in question cannot be admitted in evidence for any purpose including the collateral purpose for proving the nature and character of the possession and came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property and, consequently, decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff and restrained the defendant-appellant from interfering in her possession. 6. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant filed first appeal; the appellate court thoroughly scrutinised the evidence led by the parties and on noticing the statement of defendant Tulsiram, wherein he stated that he asserts his possession on the plot on the basis of the document executed by Nandlal and Jamnabai, which document had already been held to be inadmissible even for collateral purposes, therefore, on defendants own evidence his possession on the suit plot was not proved. The appellate court also came to the conclusion that even from the statements of witnesses, the possession of plaintiff was amply proved. The appellant tried to reagitate the issue pertaining to admissibility of the document relied on by him for possession before the trial court, however, the appellate court negated the said attempt observing that once order passed by the trial court was reversed in revision by the high court, it was not open for the appellant to reagitate the said issue. The appellant tried to reagitate the issue pertaining to admissibility of the document relied on by him for possession before the trial court, however, the appellate court negated the said attempt observing that once order passed by the trial court was reversed in revision by the high court, it was not open for the appellant to reagitate the said issue. Consequently, finding on issue pertaining to possession was upheld by the first appellate court and after examining the finding on issue No.2 pertaining to jurisdiction of the civil court, the said finding was also upheld and, resultantly, the appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed. 7. Feeling aggrieved, the present second appeal has been filed. It was vehemently submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned first appellate court committed serious error in not taking into consideration the agreement to sale dated 28.01.1990 despite the fact that in a suit filed by the appellant Tulsiram seeking specific performance of the agreement to sale dated 28.01.1990, when the trial court in that suit held the document as inadmissible, in S.B. Civil Revision Petition No.1084/1997, the high court while disposing of the revision petition observed that in the suit for specific performance despite being unregistered the document was admissible on payment of stamp duty after the documents was impounded and stamp duty was paid, which stamp duty having been paid, the appellate court was bound to take into consideration the said aspect and, therefore, the finding of the courts below stood vitiated and the judgments passed by both the courts below may be set aside and the matter be remanded back to the trial court; in any case the appeal deserves to be admitted. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent relied on the judgment passed in the revision petition as reported in 1996 DNJ (Raj.) 717, and submitted that the order passed in revision petition inter se parties is conclusive and any order passed subsequent to the said order does not have any consequence on the present proceedings and, therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 9. I have considered the rival submissions. 10. 9. I have considered the rival submissions. 10. There is no dispute that when during the pendency of the suit, the defendant wanted to exhibit the agreement to sale dated 28.01.1990, on objection being raised, the trial court by its order dated 18.07.1996 came to the conclusion that the document despite being unregistered and unstamped was admissible for collateral purpose. Against the said order S.B. Civil Revision Petition No.632/1996 was filed by the plaintiff, which came to be decided by this court on 25.09.1996 and the following order was passed:- "I, therefore, accept the revision petition and set aside the order of the learned trial court and hold that the document in question cannot be admitted in evidence for any purpose including the collateral purpose for proving the nature and character of the possession." 11. Whereafter, it appears that the defendant filed a suit seeking specific performance of contract, wherein the trial court held document as inadmissible in view of the judgment passed by this court in revision petition, as noticed hereinbefore. The appellant (plaintiff in the suit for specific performance) filed S.B. Civil Revision Petition No.1084/1997, which came to be decided by Order dated 05.04.2000 and this Court distinguished the order passed in the earlier revision petition on the ground that the earlier order was passed in a suit for injunction, wherein proviso to under Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 had no relevance and the present suit being a suit for specific performance proviso to under Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 would come into play and the document despite unregistered was admissible in evidence subject to payment of Stamp Duty on the document being impounded by the Competent Authority. 12. From the tenor and purport of the order passed by this Court in the subsequent revision petition, it is apparent that no different view from what was taken in the earlier order dated 25.09.1996 was taken by this Court, rather it was reiterated that in the suit for injunction the document was inadmissible as proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act had no role to play in the said suit. 13. 13. Besides the above, once order passed by the trial court was set aside by the High Court in the revision petition, merely because in a subsequent suit certain order has been passed by the Trial Court/High Court, the same would have no consequence regarding the orders passed in the earlier suit, which orders have already attained finality between the parties. 14. In view thereof the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the appellant has no substance. 15. So far as the findings recorded by both the courts below regarding possession of the suit property is concerned, the courts have thoroughly and critically examined the oral and documentary evidence led by the parties and have concurrently reached to the conclusion that the plaintiff indeed was in possession of the suit property and learned counsel for the appellant has failed to point out any perversity in the said finding. 16. Consequently, no substantial questions of law arise for consideration in this appeal, the same is, therefore dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******