JUDGMENT K.P. Singh, J. - This is a plaintiffs appeal from order of the lower appellate court under order 43 Rule I (4) of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. Shorn of unnecessary details the plaintiff appellant has claimed certain piece of land as her property and has alleged that Municipal Board, Rampur has brodened the road and in that connection has constructed a Nali whereby it has encroached upon the land of the plaintiff appellant. 3. The defendant Municipal Board has taken a plea that plot no. 8693 did not belong to the plaintiff if and that she had no interest in the land over which the disputed Nali exists. The trial court framed necessary issues arising out of the pleadings of the parties and decreed the plaintiffs suit as is evident from the judgment of the trial court dated 28-2-1978. Aggrieved by the judgment of the trial Court the defendant respondent had preferred an appeal which was allowed by the lower appellate court and the case had been remanded back to the trial court for fresh decision in the light of the discussions in.the impugned judgment before this court. 4. The learned counsel for the plaintiff appellant has contended before me that the lower appellate court has failed to set aside the findings recorded by the trial court and has patently erred in remanding the case. Second contention raised on behalf of the plaintiff appellant before me is that the lower appellate court has wrongly directed the plaintiff appellant to prove her case in a particular manner. In short, it has been emphasised before me that the impugned judgment of the lower appellate court remanding the case to the trial court is wholly bad in law and deserves to be set aside. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the plaintiff appellant I do not find any merit in this appeal. It is well known that in a suit in for demolition filed by the plaintiff the burden lies upon the plaintiff to prove her case beyond shadow of doubt. When the question of demolition or removal of certain constructions is involved, a heavy burden lies upon the plaintiff to establish that the alleged encroachment is in the land belonging to the plaintiff. It is not disputed before me that there is no map on the record prepared by the expert survey commissioner. When the question of demolition or removal of certain constructions is involved, a heavy burden lies upon the plaintiff to establish that the alleged encroachment is in the land belonging to the plaintiff. It is not disputed before me that there is no map on the record prepared by the expert survey commissioner. Unless a map and report of expert survey commissioner is on the record the plaintiff cannot get requisite relief in her suit. The lower appellate court has dealt with that aspect of the matter and on this ground alone it has set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial court. True, the appellate court has hot dealt with specific finding recorded by the trial court and has failed to indicate the mistakes in the judgment of the trial court and in not doing so the lower appellate court has only passed the order in favour of the plaintiff so that her case may not be prejudiced before the trial court in any manner. When the finding, and decree passed by the trial court have been set aside by the lower appellate court I think that in the facts and circumstances of the present case no legitimate grievance can be made on behalf of the plaintiff appellant. 6. As regards the direction that the plaintiff should get her land located and the trial court should decide the extent of encroachment alleged by the plaintiff after having a map prepared by expert survey commissioner I think that the lower appellate court has done right thing in the circumstances of the present case. In a suit for demolition a heavy burden lies upon the plaintiff to prove her claim beyond shadow of doubt, therefore, about the direction made by the lower appellate court the complaint by the counsel for the plaintiff appellant is not justified. 7. To my mind no exception can be taken to the impugned judgment passed by the lower appellate court. The first appeal against the order of remand passed by the lower appellate court has no legs to stand and deserve to be dismissed. 8. In the result, I dismiss this First Appeal from O. No. 17 of 1979. Smt. Akbari v. Begum Municipal Board, Rampur and another and confirm the order of remand passed by the lower appellate court. The first appeal against the order of remand passed by the lower appellate court has no legs to stand and deserve to be dismissed. 8. In the result, I dismiss this First Appeal from O. No. 17 of 1979. Smt. Akbari v. Begum Municipal Board, Rampur and another and confirm the order of remand passed by the lower appellate court. Let the record of the court below be sent forthwith so that the case may be decided by the trial court at any early date. Since no one has appeared for the respondents, I make no order as to costs.