RSA 162/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY Heard Mr. A.C. Sarma, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. B. Baner jee, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. This appeal by the plaintiff is directed against the judgment and decree dated 28.07.2008 passed by the learned District Judge, Golaghat, in Title Appea l No.4/2006, whereby and whereunder while allowing the appeal, the judgment and decree dated 19.12.2001 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Gola ghat, in Title Suit No.3/2000 has been set aside. Mr. Sarma, learned counsel for the appellant referring to the judgment a nd decree dated 28.07.2008 passed in the aforesaid appeal submits that the learn ed First Appellate Court having allowed the appeal in Title Appeal No.30/2007 vi de judgment and decree dated 28.07.2008, remanding to the learned Trial Court to decide the suit being Title Suit No.3/2000 afresh after setting aside the impug ned judgment and decree dated 19.12.2001, ought not to have passed another order dated 28.07.2008 in Title Appeal No.4/2006 allowing the appeal and setting asid e the impugned judgment and decree without indicating anything relating to the r emand. The learned counsel, therefore, submits that the present appeal be dispos ed of directing the learned Trial Court to decide the said suit afresh on the ba sis of the judgment and decree dated 28.07.2008 passed in Title Appeal No.30/200 7. Mr. Banerjee, learned counsel for the respondents submits that since vid e judgment and decree dated 28.07.2008 passed in Title Appeal No.30/2007 the lea rned First Appellate Court directed the learned Trial Court to decide the Title Suit No.3/2000, the said suit has to be decided afresh and the judgment and decr ee dated 28.07.2008 passed in Title Appeal No.4/2006 would not come into the way of the said suit, as directed vide judgment and decree dated 28.07.2008 passed in Title Appeal No.30/2007. It appears that the present respondents initially filed RFA No.36/2002 a gainst the judgment and decree dated 19.12.2001 (decree prepared on 02.01.2002) passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Golaghat, in Title Suit No.3 /2000. After the appeal was filed there was amendment of the decree, whereafter, against the amended decree, another appeal was preferred by the present respond ents being RFA No.58/2002. Both the appeals were filed before this Court, which, however, were sent back to the learned District Judge, Golaghat, in view of enh ancement of the pecuniary jurisdiction. While RFA No.36/2002 was registered as T itle Appeal No.4/2006, RFA No. 58/2002 was registered as Title Appeal No.30/2007 in the Court of the learned District Judge, Golaghat, who passed two separate j udgments and decrees in the said Title Appeal Nos.30/2007 and 4/2006. Vide judgm ent and decree dated 28.07.2008, the learned District Judge allowed Title Appeal No.30/2007 by setting aside the judgment and decree dated 19.12.2001 and remand the matter to the learned Trial Court for deciding the suit afresh. The learned District Judge, however, passed a separate judgment and decree in Title Appeal No.4/2006 allowing the appeal preferred by the respondents and setting aside the judgment and decree passed. Since both the appeals were directed against the same judgment being jud gment dated 19.12.2001 passed in Title Suit No.3/2000, the judgment and decree d ated 28.07.2008 passed in Title Appeal No.4/2006 would not come in the way of de ciding the Title Suit No.3/2000 by the learned Civil Judge pursuant to the judgm ent and decree dated 28.07.2008 passed in Title Appeal No.30/2007. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the parties that the sa id suit on remand is fixed on 10.01.2012 for argument. The learned Civil Judge, therefore, shall decide the said suit afresh and pass necessary judgment and dec ree in accordance with law. The appeal stands disposed of.