JUDGMENT 1. Appellant-plaintiff-Shri Digamber Jain Mandir has filed this second appeal assailing the judgment and decree dated 22.12.2016 passed in first appeal No.63/2016 by the Court of Additional District Judge No.3, Bharatpur whereby and whereunder the appeal has been allowed and the decree for mandatory and permanent injunction passed in favour of appellant-plaintiff by the court of Additional Civil Judge (J D) & Judicial Magistrate No.1, Bharatpur in civil suit No.19/2002 vide judgment dated 20.10.2002 has been quashed and set aside. 2. It appears from the record that appellant-temple filed a civil suit for mandatory and permanent injunction against the respondent-temple-Shri Sant Sahib Ji alleging inter alia that respondent-temple has opened a gate unauthorizedly towards the way which is being used by appellant-temple since long and respondent has created obstruction/nuisance in using the way by appellant-temple. Along with the plaint one map was appended and in the map, the way in question was marked as ?, ?, ? and ? and the new gate opened by respondent-temple was marked as ’Y’. It may be noticed that in the plaint, appellant has not prayed for any relief of declaration to the effect that appellant-temple has acquired absolute and exclusive right to use the way marked as ?,?, ?, ? and respondent-temple has no right to open any gate towards this way. Undisputedly both temples are situated adjoining. 3. Respondent-temple filed written statement denying the appellant’s claim and have alleged that respondent has right to open the gate towards the way in question which is common way for the use of general public as well as the persons who come to the temple. 4. The trial court vide judgment dated 22.10.2002 passed the decree for mandatory and permanent injunction in favour of appellant to the following effect:- 5. Respondents have challenged the judgment and decree by way of filing first appeal. In the first appeal, appellate court reappreciate the evidence and reverse the findings with observation that neither appellant has proved that defendant has opened the gate unauthorisedly nor has proved that any obstruction/nuisance has been created in use of the way by appellant, hence the decree for mandatory and permanent injunction was set aside vide judgment dated 22.12.2016. 6. Heard learned counsel for both parties and perused the impugned judgments. 7. At the outset, it transpires that alleged gate in question was opened way back in month of October, 1992. 6. Heard learned counsel for both parties and perused the impugned judgments. 7. At the outset, it transpires that alleged gate in question was opened way back in month of October, 1992. Undisputedly, both temples are situated adjoining. It is also clear from the record that appellant has not claimed any declaration of acquiring absolute and exclusive right to use the way in question and no suit for declaration was filed rather a simpliciter suit for mandatory and permanent injunction was filed. The appellate court on reappreciation of evidence adduced by plaintiff and defendants observed that it is not established that the defendant-temple has opened the gate marked ’Y’ unauthorisedly and with mala fide intention to create obstruction/nuisance to plaintiff-temple. The appellate court observed that the plaintiff has not produced any iota of evidence to show as to how and in what manner the defendant obstructed or created nuisance in use of way in question by plaintiff. None of the devotees/visitors of temple were produced in evidence. The appellate court observed that the evidence produced by plaintiff-temple is not in connection with the issue Nos.1 and 3 involved herein. The appellate court observed that since the nature of civil suit is confined to the mandatory and permanent injunction, the issue No.2 relating to declaration of easementary right of plaintiff temple does not arise at all. As far as other issues related to misjoinder of parties, non-accrual of cause of action, filing of civil suit without permission under Section 91 CPC and claiming a cost of Rs.5,000/- by defendant were addressed and decided separately. A perusal of judgment of first appellate court reveals that the appellate court has decided each and every issue independently and separately though the findings have been given in precise manner. The first appellate court has also assigned the reasons to reverse the findings of the trial court and to set aside the decree passed by the trial court. Perusal of the judgment of trial court shows that the trial court has given a reference of the statements of PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4 but such evidence is not in reference to the issue Nos.1 and 3 involved in the present case. Perusal of the judgment of trial court shows that the trial court has given a reference of the statements of PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4 but such evidence is not in reference to the issue Nos.1 and 3 involved in the present case. The trial court, instead of pondering over the clinching issues that whether the defendanttemple has opened the gate unauthorisedly and has created any obstruction/nuisance in use of the way by the plaintiff, considered the foreign issues that the defendant temple has alternative way. The trial court also remained fail to examine the scope and nature of civil suit filed by plaintiff. Hence, in such circumstances, first appellate court has interfered with the findings and judgment of the trial court. 8. The Supreme Court in case of Santosh Hazari Vs. Purushottamn Tiwari [ (2001) 3 SCC 179 ], State Bank of India Vs. Emmsons International Limited [ (2011) 12 SCC 174 ], Jagannath Vs. Arulappa [ (2005) 12 SCC 303 ], Kondiba Dagadu Kadam Vs. Savitribai Sopan Gurjar [ (1999) 3 SCC 722 ], Arumugham Vs. Sundarambal [JT 1994 (4) SC 464] and Umerkhan Vs. Bismillabi [ (2011) 9 SCC 684 ] has observed that the first appellate court is well within its jurisdiction to re-appreciate the evidence as a whole and to record its own findings of fact by reversing the findings of the trial court if the findings of the trial court are found to be perverse. 9. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Kondiba Dagadu Kadam Vs. Savitribai Sopan Gujar [(1999) 3SCC 722] has held as under :- "It is not within the domain of the High Court to investigate the grounds on which the findings were arrived at by the last Court of fact, being the first appellate court. It is true that the lower appellate court should not ordinarily reject witnesses accepted by the trial court in respect of credibility but even where it has rejected the witnesses accepted by the trial court, the same is no ground for interference in second appeal when it is found that the appellate court has given satisfactory reasons for doing so." 10. This Court finds that the first appellate court has acted well within its jurisdiction and the reversal of findings are based on due appreciation of evidence and assigning reasons. Such findings do not suffer from any perversity. This Court finds that the first appellate court has acted well within its jurisdiction and the reversal of findings are based on due appreciation of evidence and assigning reasons. Such findings do not suffer from any perversity. Learned counsel for appellant also could not point out that the findings of first appellate court suffer from any infirmity/illegality or misreading/non-reading of evidence. In such circumstances, no substantial question of law arises in this second appeal. Subsequently is sine qua non for exercising the jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC and to entertain the second appeal. Hence, the second appeal is found to be devoid of merits and the same is dismissed. 11. Stay application as well as any other pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.