^;E:£;tyi; APPELLANT PLAINTirF HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGAKH AT BILASPUR MISC. APPBAL No. 1076 OP 2003 Shri Balajee Swami (Dudhadhari Math) Registered PubUc Trust, Raipur Through-Rajeshri Mahant Ram Suuder Das Guru late Vaishnav Dasjee Dudhadhari Mafh, Raipur. RESPHDENTS VERSUS 2. Prahlad son of Sukalu Sahu, aged about 40 years, R/o near Station, Abhanpur, TahsU & District Raipur. State of Chhattisgarh Through - CoUector, Raipur. APPEAL UNDER ORDBR 43 RULE 1 (ul CODE QF CIVILPROCEDURE. (SB :Hon'b!e Mr. T.P.Sharma, J.j Present:-. Shri H.B. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate with Shri J.K. Gupta, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Satyendra Sahu, Advocate for the respondent N0. 1. Shri Sameer Behar, P.L, for the State/respondent N0. 2. ORAL- ORDER (Passedoa 19/6/2009t 1. This is a Misc. appeal agaiust ttie judgnient and decree of remaad dated 13/8/2003 passed by fhe District Judge, Raipur in civil appeat No. 13-A/2002 where by leanied District Judge has reinanded the case for issuancc of coitunission for local inspection uader Order 26 Rule 9 of the CPC to ensure that whether fhe respondent is iu possession of land owned by fhe appellaat. 2. According to the case of the partics present appeUant is a owner of Kh.No. 499/42 area 11.945 htrs. and respondeat N0. 1 is in possession of certam laud which has not been identified aud laeasured by ttie expert i,e. Revenue Of&cer. Appcllant has adduced the oral evidence. After appreciatiug the evidence Lower AppeUate Court has reinaaded fhe case for local iaspection under Order 26 Rule 9 ofthe CPC. ^SK. i'"ai^ •'•:"EiJ.1 .,'1 \ " / I'at 6. Leamed counsel for the appeUaat submits fliat Court below has comiuitted any iUegality by remanded tfae case, However judgment aad decree supportonbehaIfoftherespondentNo, 1. Admittedly, respoudent No. 1 has not admitted that he is ia possession of the land owned by fhe appeUant. AppeUaut has not examined aay expert witaesses i.e. Revenue Officer who has nieasured and deiaarcated tfae laud aad has reported that respondent is in possession of fhe laad owned by fhe appellant. In absence of such evidence it is difi&cult to hold fhat respondent has encroached/occupied the laud owned by the appellaat. Learued Appellate Court rightly remanded the case for decidmg case afresh after issuaace offhe coiiunission for local inspection. Coitrt below has not committed any iUegaUy. I do not fiud any substauce in the appeal and same is liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Order dated 22/1/2004 is hereby vacated. Parties are directed to present before fhe 6th CivU Judge Class-I or Civil Judge concemed whom case has been subsequenfly transferred for further progress of the case on 27th July- 2009. Sd/- T.P. Sharma