IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA No.425 of 1999 Date of decision : March 10, 2009 Sarbi Devi …Appellant. Versus State of H.P. and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Appellant : Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General, with M/s Ramesh Thakur and R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate Generals, for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No.3 and 4. Surjit Singh, Judge( Oral ) Heard and gone through the record. 2. This Regular Second Appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law, vide order dated 10th April, 2000: “Whether the lower Appellate Court can set aside the findings of the trial Court regarding which there is no appeal and/or cross-objections by the opposite party?” 3. Relevant facts may be noticed. Plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for declaration that he was owner in possession of the suit land and also for injunction restraining the respondents from causing any interference in his possession over the suit Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… land. Defendants took the plea that the property belonged to them and that the plaintiff had made encroachment and for removal of that encroachment, proceedings, under Section 163 of the H.P. Land Reforms Act, had been initiated. Various preliminary objections were also raised. 4. Trial Court held that the plaintiff was not the owner but she was in settled possession of the suit property and had the right to remain in possession, until ousted from the suit property by due process of law. Appeal was filed against that decree of the trial Court, in the Court of learned District Judge, by the plaintiff-appellant herself. The learned Additional District Judge, who heard the matter, passed a decree, which conveys no sense. The operative part of the judgment of the first Appellate Court, on which the decree of the said Court is drawn, reads as follows: “In view of foregoing reasons, the appeal is dismissed and partly judgement and decree of the learned trial court is set-aside in toto and the suit of the appellant-plaintiff is dismissed in toto. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly. In the peculiar circumstances of the case the parties are left to bear their own costs. The record of the lower court alongwith a copy of this judgement be sent back.” 5. As is clear from a bare reading of the aforesaid operative part, the learned Appellant Court perhaps did not know what decision it wanted to render. The operative part of the judgment is self-contradictory and conveys no sense. The decree drawn on the basis of this final order cannot be executed. …3… 6. In view of the abovestated position, appeal is accepted, judgment and decree of the first Appellate Court are set aside and the case is remanded to the learned Additional District Judge, Solan, to decide the same afresh. Because of the abovestated position, substantial question of law, on which the appeal was admitted, calls for no finding. Parties are directed to appear before the learned Additional District Judge, Solan, on 22nd April, 2009. Registry is directed to send the records of first Appellate Court and of the trial Court to the learned Additional District Judge, with a copy of this judgment, before the aforesaid date. March 10, 2009(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J