RATANLAL CHANDANI Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal filed under Order 43 Rule 1(u) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) takes exception to the order dated 25.9.2017 passed in RCA No.157/2016 by learned XVIII Additional District Judge, Bhopal whereby he has interfered with the judgment and decree dated 9.3.2016 passed in RCS No.200A/2009 and remitted the matter back to the Court below with certain directions.

(2.) Briefly stated, the relevant facts are that the appellant/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction which was registered as RCS No.200A/2009. The defendants filed their written statement. After completion of pleadings, framing of issues and recording of evidence, the trial court passed the judgment and decree dated 9.3.2016 and declared the appellant/plaintiff as owner in possession of suit property. The defendants were injuncted by issuance of permanent injunction. They were restrained from interfering in the ownership and possession of plaintiff.

(3.) The defendants/respondents filed an appeal under Section 96 of CPC before the appellate court which was registered as RCS No.157/2016. After hearing the parties, the impugned judgment dated 25.9.2017 was passed. The appellate court remitted the matter back to the court below with the direction to obtain application from plaintiff under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC. Thereafter, the defendants be given opportunity to file reply and thereafter exercise of measurement should be undertaken by giving adequate opportunity to both the parties. After recording evidence of the parties, the matter be decided afresh.