1 ( APPBLLANT PLAINTirF HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISG^ARH ATBIL^PUR MISC. APPBAL Mo. 1075 OF 2003 Shri Balajee Swami (Dudhadhari Math) Registered PubUc Trust, Raipur, Through-Rajeshri Mahant Shri Ram Sunder Das Guru late Shri Mahant Vaishnav Das Shri Dudhadhari Mafh Raipiir. RBSPONDENTS DBFBNDANTS VERSUS 1. 2. Rukhmaai Bai wife of Girdhari Lal, aged about 40 yeara, R/o near Station, Abhaapur, Tahsil aud DistEict Raipur. State of Chhattisgarh Through CoUector, Raipur. APPBAL UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1 (ut CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURB. {SB :Hoa'bleMr. T.P.Sharma, J.J Present:-. Shri H.B. Agrawal, Sr. Ad'rocate with Shri J.K. Gupta, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Satyendra Sahu, Advocate for the respondent N0. 1. Shri Saineer Behar, P.L. for the State/respondent N0. 2. ORAL- ORDBR (Passedon 19/6/2009) 1. TIlis is a Misc. appeal agauist tbe judginent aad decree of reinaad dated 13/8/2003 passed by the Distri.et Judge, Raipzir in civil appeal No. 14-A/2002 where by learaed District Judge has reiuanded the case for issuance of comiuission for local inspection imder Order 26 Rule 9 of the CPC to ensure ftiat whether fhe respondent is ia possession ofland owned by the appeUaat. 2. According to the case of the parties present appcllaat is a owner of Kh.No. 499/42 area 11.945 btrs, aud respODdent N0. 1 is m possession of certam land which has not been ideatified aud measured by the expert i.e. Revenue OfBcer. AppeUant has adduced ftie oral evidence. After appreciating the evidence Lower AppeUate Court has reinauded the case for local iuspectioii under Order 26 Rule 9 ofthe CPC. 1. 81 £-- Et||;, 6. Leamed counsel for fhe appeUaut submits fhat Court below has conunitted any UlegaUty by reniaaded the case. However judginent and decree support on behalfofthe respondent No. 1. Admittedly, respondent No. 1 has uot admitted that he is in possession of fhe land owned by the appeUant AppeUaat has not examiaed aay expert witnesses i.e. Revenue Officer who has ineasured aad deniarcated fhe land and has reported that respondent is in. possession of fhe laad owned by fhe appeUant. In absence of such evidence it is difiicult to hold fhat respondent has encroached/occupied the laad owned by the appeUant. Learaed Appellate Court rightty reniauded the case for decidiug case afresh after issuauce offhe coTntnission for local inspectioB.. Court below has not conimitted any UlegaUy. I do not find any substance in the appeal aud same is Uable to be dismissed and it is hereby disinissed. No order as to costs. Order dated 22/1/2004 is hereby vacated, Parties are directed to present before fhe 6th Civfl Judge Class-I or Civil Judge concemed whoin case has toeen subsequenfly traasferred for further progress of the case on 27*h July- 2009. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge