IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA. No.91 of 2002. Date of Decision: 8.4.2011. _______________________________________________ Pohlo Ram. ….Appellant. Versus. Amar Singh. ….Respondent. Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, Judge. Whether approved for reporting1?. Yes. For the appellants :Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Advocate. For Respondent. :Mr.Virender Singh, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud, J.(Oral). This is plaintiff’s appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned appellate Court allowing the appeal of the defendant granting a decree for possession in favour of the appellant herein. 2. The suit out of which this appeal arises was instituted by the plaintiff-appellant praying for a decree of possession on the basis of ownership. The case pleaded was that during the settlement in the year 1980-81, the defendant got himself recorded as in possession of the land and took forcible possession in the month of January, 1990. The learned trial Court on the evidence decreed the suit and did Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment.yes. 2 not accept the defence set up by the respondent herein that he was in actual possession of the land and by virtue of which he had become owner by way of adverse possession. 3. The defendant appealed. The learned District Judge, by a terse order, has allowed the appeal and given short shrift to the contentions raised by both the parties before him. On more than one occasion, the Supreme Court has held that in a first appeal, it is the bounden duty of the appellate Court to give its findings on all the points raised after detailed analysis of the evidence oral or documentary on record. Unfortunately, I do not find that this exercise having been undertaken by the learned appellate Court. It is trite to observe that the first appellate Court being a final court of fact is otherwise also duty bound by law to undertake this statutory duty. Reference may be made to the judgments of the Supreme court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kanwal Nain Sachdeva and others, (1999) 9 SCC 193, K.R. Steel Union Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs Kandla (Gujrat) (2001) 4 SCC 736, A.Ambikamba dead by LRs. and another Vs. B.Ranagaswamy dead by LRs. (2005) 9 SCC 374, H.K.N. Swami Vs. Irshad Basith (dead) by LRs (2005) 10 SCC 243, Sanjay Singh Rawat and others Vs. National Small Industries Corpn. Ltd. and others (2005) 12 SCC 146 and Rama Pulp & Papers Ltd. Vs. Maruti N. Dhotre (2005) 12 SCC 186. I need not multiply precedent any further. 4. It is with anguish that I pass an order of remand as the suit was instituted in the year 1995. But the manner in which the appeal has been dealt with, leaves no option with 3 me but to remand this case. It is directed accordingly. The learned District Judge Kangra at Dharamshala shall re-admit the appeal. An endeavour shall be made to dispose of this case not later than 30th November, 2011. 5. Parties are directed to appear before the learned District Judge on 17th May, 2011. Records be sent back forthwith. No order as to costs. (Dev Darshan Sud), Judge. April 8, 2011(R)