The impugned decision and decree passed by the trial court have been questioned on the grounds stated in the appeal memorandum on behalf of the appellant. During the arguments, it has been stated on behalf of the appellant that documents and oral evidence from 1 to 3 cases were presented by the plaintiff regarding possession, which the trial court did not consider seriously nor believed. The impugned decision has been written on the basis of the said order, whereas the plaintiff has fully proved his case with his evidence. Therefore, it is requested that the impugned decision and facts passed by the trial court be cancelled as illegal and the appeal of the appellant be accepted and the case be considered. The applicant witness has admitted in the cross-examination conducted on behalf of the applicant that his son is unable to walk due to congenital disability. There is only one way to go to his and the non-applicant's farm. He has also denied that there is a dispute between them regarding the way. This witness has stated that the incident was reported but has not been able to tell any date regarding his son's and his own birth date. The witness states that he had informed the doctor about the incident. The doctor did not give any information about the incident to the police station. On the contrary, the non-applicant has stated in his statement that there was no accident with the vehicle in question. The applicant has presented a false case against him. In the cross-examination conducted on behalf of the applicant, the witness has admitted that a case has been registered against him by the police, but the witness himself states that the case has been decided and he has been acquitted. During the arguments, the learned advocate of the appellant has argued by presenting a copy of the decision dated 05.06.2017 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the appeal The appellant has deposited the cheque amount and the interest amount mentioned in the decision by the court. Hence, as per the above decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, he is entitled to immunity or acquittal.