parties and on appraisal of record, the lower court, vide judgment & decree dated October 3, 1986, dismissed the suit of plaintiffs by holding that plaintiffs failed to convince as to how the order of Assistant Director Consolidation and subsequent mutation No.2003 sanctioned on the basis of the order are nullity. The order of Assistant Director Consolidation cannot be challenged in the civil court. The plaintiffs have not filed any appeal against the order of Assistant Director Consolidation and that order is binding on them. Aggrieved plaintiffs went up in appeal, however, the same as also dismissed by the lower appellate court vide judgment & decree dated June 4, 1988. 7. Now, the plaintiffs have challenged the judgments and decrees passed by the courts below, before this court. 8. At the very outset of arguments, it has been submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that though as many as eight issues were framed by learned trial court and judgment & decree as rendered on October 3, 1986 while dismissing the suit, however, when an appeal was filed before the lower appellate court, the appellants strongly challenged the findings recorded by the learned lower court on all the issues. But to the utter surprise, lower appellate court did not even touch the findings on issue Nos.3 to 8 which were impugned
