RSA No. 157 of 2000 6.11.2009 Present:- Mr. Rajnish K. Lal vice Mr. K.D.Sood, counsel for the appellants. Mr. R.K.Sharma, counsel for respondent No.1. The appeal has been admitted on following substantial questions of law:- 1. Whether the civil court had jurisdiction to try the suit in view of the fact that the appellant had been conferred ownership rights by the Land Reforms Officer vide order dated 3.5.1982 which order was confirmed on appeal having been filed by the plaintiff/respondent vide order dated 12.6.84, moreso, when the order of the Land Reforms Officer had not been challenged on the ground that proper opportunity prescribed by law had not been granted and procedure not followed? 2. Whether the suit of the plaintiff challenging the order of the Land Reforms Officer dated 3.5.82 confirmed on 12.6.84, in the suit instituted on 28.9.88 was within limitation ? 3. Whether the findings of the court below are vitiated for non- consideration of the admissions of the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 9, the receipts Ex.D-1 to D-9 and the revenue records to which presumption of truth is attached ? 4. Whether the judgment of the District Judge is vitiated for non-consideration of application for amendment of the written statement and disposal of the appeal keeping in view the well settled principles for amendment of written statement. - 2 - The learned counsel for the parties have jointly stated that learned District Judge, Hamirpur had earlier decided several appeals vide common judgment dated 30.11.1991 including Civil Appeal No. 28 of 1991 Chuni Lal Vs. Besru Devi and others, which was challenged in this Court by way of RSA No. 24 of 1992. The Division Bench decided the RSA No. 24 of 1992 on 22.9.1997 and disposed of the appeal as follows:- “In this appeal the lower appellate court has taken the view that the decision of the Full Bench in Chuhniya Devi v. Jindu Ram (1991) (1) Simla Law Cases 223) applies and consequently the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The appellate court has set-aside the judgment of the trial court and remanded the matter to the trial Court with a direction to the trial court to return the plaint to the plaintiff for presentation of the same in the court of competent jurisdiction. 2. It is seen from the judgment of the appellate court that the question whether the ruling of the Full Bench is applicable to the facts of the case, has not been considered at all by the appellate Judge. In such circumstances, the judgment of the appellate Judge is wholly unsustainable. 3. Before deciding to direct the trial court to return the plaint the appellate Judge ought to have considered whether the case is governed by the ruling given by the Full Bench on the facts of the case. Hence the order of the appellate Judge is set-aside and the matter is remanded back to the file of the District Judge for fresh disposal in accordance with law. The District Judge will hear the parties and give his findings on the facts and decide thereafter whether on those facts the ruling of the Full bench will apply. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.” The learned counsel for the parties have again jointly stated that the learned District Judge in the impugned judgment has not considered Chuhniya Devi vs. Jindu Ram (1991 (1) Simla Law Cases 223. The Division Bench while setting aside the judgment of the lower appellate court and remanding the case had given a specific direction that the District Judge will hear the parties and give his findings on the - 3 - facts and decide thereafter whether on those facts the ruling of the Full Bench will apply. Unfortunately, the learned District Judge has failed to comply the directions of the Division Bench which has not been disputed by learned counsel for the parties. In these circumstances, the impugned judgment, decree are not sustainable and are accordingly set-aside. The case is remanded to the learned District Judge Hamirpur with a direction to restore the appeal on its original number. The substantial questions of law referred above are not decided in view of remand of the case. The case is quite old. The learned District Judge is directed to decide the appeal afresh on all points involved in the appeal and as per directions of Division Bench in RSA No. 24 of 1992 decided on 22.9.1997 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the learned District Judge Hamirpur on 30.11.2009. The record of the District Judge alongwith the record of the trial court be sent to learned District Judge Hamirpur immediately so as to reach before the date fixed. Appeal is disposed of. November 6, 2009. ( Kuldip Singh ) (GR) Judge.