Sitaram vs Smt. Hajara Begam
2023 Latest Caselaw 9320 MP

                                                     1
                          IN    THE    HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                            AT JABALPUR
                                                  BEFORE
                                    HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
                                            ON THE 21 st OF JUNE, 2023
                                          MISC. APPEAL No. 1988 of 2010

                         BETWEEN:-
                         1.    SITARAM S/O GULDAN MEHTAR, AGED ABOUT 50
                               Y E A R S , ITWARA BAZAR PIPARIYA DISTT
                               HOSHANGABAD (MADHYA PRADESH)

                         2.    GOPAL S/O GULDAN MEHTAR, AGED ABOUT 43
                               Y E A R S , ITWARA  BAZAR,    PIPARIYA,
                               DISTT.HOSHANGABAD (MADHYA PRADESH)

                         3.    SURESH KUMAR S/O GULDAN MEHTAR, AGED
                               ABOUT 45 YEARS, ITWARA BAZAR, PIPARIYA,
                               DISTT.HOSHANGABAD (MADHYA PRADESH)

                         4.    KAILASH S/O MADANLAL MEHTAR, AGED ABOUT
                               49     YEARS, ITWARA  BAZAR,   PIPARIYA,
                               DISTT.HOSHANGABAD (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                          .....PETITIONERS
                         (BY SHRI K.K.KUSHWAHA - ADVOCATE)

                         AND
                         1.    SMT. HAJARA BEGAM W/O LATE AHMAD ALI,
                               AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, BAIHAR ROAD WARD NO
                               9 BALAGHAT (MADHYA PRADESH)

                         2.    MOHD.ASRAF ALI S/O LATE AHMAD ALI, AGED
                               ABOUT 35 YEARS, BAIHAR ROAD, WARD NO.9,
                               DISTT.BALAGHAT (MADHYA PRADESH)

                         3.    MOHD. SADIK ALI S/O LATE AHMAD ALI, AGED
                               ABOUT 30 YEARS, BAIHAR ROAD, WARD NO.9,
                               DISTT.BALAGHAT (MADHYA PRADESH)

                         4.    COLLECTOR    /  DISTRICT    MAGISTRATE
                               DISTT.HOSHANGABAD (MADHYA PRADESH)

                         5.    KHET SINGH S/O GULAB SINGH SONI, AGED
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT JAIN
Signing time:
6/21/2023 6:59:33 PM
                                                       2
                               ABOUT 59 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SUB INSPECTOR,
                               RPF,    RAILWAY     COLONY,       PIPARIYA,
                               DISTT.HOSHANGABAD (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                      .....RESPONDENTS
                         (BY SHRI UMESH TRIVEDI - ADVOCATE)

                               T h is appeal coming on for orders this day, t h e cou rt passed the
                         following:
                                                             ORDER

This appeal is filed by the defendants being aggrieved of judgment and decree dated 16.2.2010 passed by learned Additional District Judge-Pipariya, District Hoshangabad in Regular Civil Appeal No.10A/2009 setting aside the judgment and decree dated 28.6.2008 passed by learned Civil Judge Class-II-

Pipariya, District Hoshangabad in Regular Civil Suit No.19A/2002 and remanding the matter to the Trial Court for further proceedings.

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the remand is not through a reasoned order. The suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed and, therefore, there was no occasion to remand the matter to the Trial Court. There could not have been any direction for fresh demarcation and, therefore, the order of remand is inappropriate.

I have perused the impugned order of remand. In Paragraph No.26, learned 1st Appellate Court has recorded a finding that the Court on its own volition can order for demarcation of land if it comes to a conclusion that the earlier demarcation is not proper. It has come to the conclusion that without there being any demarcation, no finding in regard to encroachment could have been recorded and under such facts and circumstances of the case, the learned 1st Appellate Court directed for spot inspection/demarcation by issuing a Commission and thereafter taking the evidence on record for deciding the suit

Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMIT JAIN Signing time:

6/21/2023 6:59:33 PM

on its own merits. The impugned order of remand having been passed after framing issues for remand cannot be faulted with. Thus, there is no illegality in the impugned order calling for any interference in this appeal. The parties are directed to appear before the Trial Court on 13.7.2023 for which no separate notices will be required.

In above terms, this appeal is disposed of.

(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE amit

Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMIT JAIN Signing time:

6/21/2023 6:59:33 PM