JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties on admission. 2. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellants drew the attention of the Court to the order dated 14.09.2012 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, wherein, it was, inter alia, observed as under:- "When there was prima facie a dispute between defendant - Company, RIICO and plaintiff Company about the demarcation of land and its title, this Court is at a loss to understand how and why without impleading RIICO and summoning the relevant record from RIICO, the courts below have decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff - respondent without going into this relevant issue. From the photographs produced by the defendant - appellant - Company, prima facie, it appears that the respondent - Company has taken possession of the excess land over and above the land purchased by it from the predecessors - in - interest and then later on got such excess land regularised from RIICO through execution of the fresh lease deed beyond the land acquired by the RIICO itself, from out of the land allotted by the Government to the defendant - appellant - Company M/s. Birla Corporation Ltd. & anr. prior to the acquisition of the land for RIICO by the State Government under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act." 3. Further, by the said order the relevant record pertaining to the land in question from RIICO Branch, Chittorgarh was also summoned. 4. The RIICO has produced photo copy of the entire file through its counsel Mr. Sanjeet Purohit on 29.01.2014, which contains 262 pages. The said record be properly attached with the record of the present second appeal. 5. Admit. 6. The following substantial questions of law arise for consideration in this appeal:- (i) Whether the courts below were justified in decreeing the suit ignoring site report (Exhibit-10) indicating the predecessor in interest of the plaintiff being in possession of excess area to the extent of 61.10 square meter? (ii) Whether the courts below were justified in coming to the conclusion that plaintiff was entitled to injunction on account of lease agreement (Exhibit-2) indicating 2044.50 square meter area ignoring the other relevant material available on record? (iii) Whether the courts below were justified in coming to the conclusion that RIICO was not a necessary party to the suit? 7. Issue notice. Mr. (iii) Whether the courts below were justified in coming to the conclusion that RIICO was not a necessary party to the suit? 7. Issue notice. Mr. Farzand Ali, learned counsel appears for the sole respondent, therefore, no need to issue fresh notice. 8. I.A. No. 2419/2007 filed by the appellants seeking to clarify stand is allowed. 9. The applications I.A. No. 8851/2007 and I.A. No. 10453/2008 filed under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC by the appellants were ordered to be considered at the time of hearing of the appeal by order dated 22.08.2008 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. 10. In view of the fact that by order dated 14.09.2012 the entire record of the RIICO has been summoned apparently exercising powers under Order 41, Rule 27 (1)(b) CPC and the documents filed by the appellants along-with the applications form part of the said record, the applications stand allowed by implication. The photographs filed by the appellants along-with the application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC and by the respondent along-with reply to the application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC are also taken on record. 11. Heard on interim relief made in the memo of appeal and on S.B. Civil Misc. Stay Application No.2528/2010 filed on 18.02.2010. 12. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the execution of the decree dated 12.10.2004 passed by the trial court, as upheld by judgment and decree dated 26.09.2006 by the appellate court shall remain stayed during pendency of this appeal and parties are further directed to maintain status quo regarding the disputed land. Both the parties shall not use the disputed area for dumping over burden and/or slurry etc. 13. The prayer for interim relief and stay application stand disposed of. 14. As the record of the courts below has already been received, list the appeal for hearing.Application Disposed of. *******