IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA RSA No.264 of 2001. Date of decision: 23.5.2011 Dharamvir & Others … …Appellants Versus Mangat Rai & Others … …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Dev Darshan Sud,J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No For the Appellants: Mr.N.K. Thakur, Advocate. For Respondent No.1: Mr.Bhupender Gupta, Senior Advocate with Ms.Charu Gupta, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud,J. This is the defendants appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge reversing the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court dismissing the suit of the plaintiff-respondent Mangat Rai for possession of suit land and a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining him from making any encroachment over Khasra Nos.868 and 820. 2. The plaintiff-respondent instituted the suit on the allegation that he is the owner of the land as described in the plaint and that defendants No.1 and 2 before the trial Court, namely, Shri Jagan Nath and 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? Yes 2 Dina Nath (contesting defendants), have encroached upon this land in the absence of the plaintiff and plaintiff had raised construction thereof. 3. Suit was contested by the defendants denying the case of the plaintiff and further pleading that in case any encroachment is found, it would not entitle the plaintiff to the relief as prayed for as the defendants have acquired title by way of adverse possession. Learned trial Court, on the issue of adverse possession, held in favour of the defendant and on issue No.3 which was to the effect as to whether the plaintiff has any cause of action, held that it was established on record that the plaintiff did not have any cause of action to institute this suit. 4. The plaintiff appealed. Learned appellate Court, reversed the judgment. The defendants are now in second appeal. 5. One of the questions urged for determination and on which the appeal was admitted is:- “1. Whether the lower appellate Court has acted with material illegality and irregularity, in granting the decree for mandatory injunction, without specifically rendering the findings on issue No.3 and giving reasons to disagree with the findings of the trial court on such issue? 6. This question I am not considering for the reasons stated hereinafter. Learned trial Court, on 3 the evidence, held on issue No.3, namely, “Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action?” that the plaintiff had no cause of action. What I find from the judgment of the learned appellate Court is that this issue has been discussed in detail. This is the precise grievance of the appellant herein who submits that if he has succeeded on the question of plaintiff being non-suited, under this issue there should and ought to have been a finding by the learned appellate Court. The Court, according to the learned counsel, has only focused the attention on the question of adverse possession. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case. 8. I find from the judgment of the learned appellate Court that this issue has not been discussed by him at all while considering the respective case of the parties. It is undisputed that the appellate Court being the final Court of fact was duty bound to consider the case of the parties on all issues/points as urged. It is in these circumstances that I am constrained to remand the case to the learned District Judge at Una with this direction that he shall admit the case on the Court record and thereafter proceed to decide the appeal afresh in accordance with law. The judgment in appeal is accordingly set aside. 9. Parties are directed to appear before learned District Judge, Una on 22nd June, 2011. While passing 4 this order I am alive to the situation that the genesis of the suit dates back to the year 1987, but the circumstances, as such, that they do not warrant any other order except an order of remand, more especially, since the appellate Court has not discharged its duties. Records be sent back forthwith. May 23, 2011. (Dev Darshan Sud) (aks) Judge.