UMA CHAND AND ANOTHER Vs. ROSHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs' suit claiming therethrough, hence rendition, of, a decree of, permanent prohibitory and also, of, mandatory injunction, vis-A-vis, the suit land, and, against the defendants, stood dismissed, by the learned trial Court. The reason(s), for, the learned trial Court, hence, dismissing the plaintiffs' afore suit, became anchored, upon, the demarcation report, as made by the demarcating officer, vis-A-vis, the contiguous estate(s), of, the contesting litigants, (a) rather not becoming drawn in consonance, instructions, (b) to with, the thereupon it proceeded, to, relevant conclude, vis-A-vis, adversial findings upon, the apposite issues, becoming amenable, for, being returned against the plaintiff. However, the aggrieved plaintiff instituted an appeal thereagainst, before the learned first appellate Court, and, the latter proceeded to make, an, order of, wholesale remand, of, the lis, vis-A-vis, the learned trial Court. The learned first appellate Court, after, proceeding to notice grave infirmities, in, the demarcation report, though became enjoined, to, thereafter, obviously, in the interest of justice, rather appoint a new local commissioner, for enabling it, to, upon a validly made demarcation report, hence completely rest, the, lis, yet it failed to do so, rather it proceeded to make directions, upon the learned trial Court, to, appoint a fresh local commissioner, to, conduct a valid demarcation, of, the contiguous estate(s), of, the contesting litigants. Re- emphasizingly, also the afore order, is, an order of wholesale remand, of, the entire lis, to, the learned trial Court.

(2.) Be that as it may, though, the, making, of, an order wholesale remand of the lis, by the learned first appellate Court, vis-A-vis, the learned trial Court, may not, be wholly fallible, given the deep inter-connectivity, interse all the struck issues, and, also when hence, the report of the local commissioner, constituted, the, fulcrum, for returning apt findings, on each, of the issues. Moreover, the learned first appellate Court, for ensuring, the, curbing, of, prolongation(s), of, the litigation, amongst the contesting litigants, given it becoming pronounced, in a catena of judgments, rendered by this Court, that even if the report, of, the Local Commissioner, is, noticed to be infirm, or is noticed to be invalidly drawn, (a) does thereupon become enjoined, to, rather proceed to, suo motu, appoint a local commissioner, and, to thereafter, ensure from him, that he institutes a valid demarcation report, before it. Further more, after inviting, all, the objections, from the objectors concerned, it is pronounced, in a catena of judgments, rendered by this Court, vis- A-vis, the learned first appellate Court, suo motu, proceeding to decide the lis, appertaining, to alleged encroachments, as, made by the errant litigant, upon, the contiguous estate, of, the plaintiff. However, all the afore recoursing(s) are hereat amiss. Obviously, the learned first appellate Court, has, not ensured, the, curbings, of, prolongation(s), of, the extant litigation, through its rather ordering, for, the wholesale remand, of, the lis, to, the learned trial Court.

(3.) In aftermath, this Court deems it fit, and, appropriate, to, make interference(s) with, the impugned order. The appeal is allowed, and, the impugned order, is, quashed and set aside. The learned first appellate Court, is, directed to, after appointing a local commissioner, and, also after inviting objections thereto, from the aggrieved therefrom, hence proceed to decide civil Appeal No. 28 of 2018, within three months, hereafter. The parties are directed to appear before the learned first appellate Court, on 28.3.2020.