Judgment Gurusharan Sharma, J. 1. The plaintiff-appellant field Title Suit No. 121 of 1988 against the defendant-respondent for declaration of title and recovery of possession of the suit land, detailed in Schedule II to the plaint. 2. According to the plaintiff, the defendant had encroached South-Western portion of Plot No. 1533/1 as also a portion of Plot No. 1532, detailed in Schedule III to the plaint, which was a Public Rasta. 3. The plaintiff claimed the said Plot No. 1533/1 to have purchased by two registered sale deed dated 30.3.1971 and 17.6.1971 (Exts. 2 and 2/a). She claimed that by virtue of the aforesaid encroachment and constructions by the defendant, her egress and ingress from orchard on Plot No. 1533/1 to the road was blocked. 4. The defendant did not appear to contest the suit. The suit was, therefore, decreed ex-parte on 28.6.1989 with a direction to the defendant to remove his illegal encroachment from the plaintiffs land. 5. According to the plaintiff, as her suit was decreed in part only she preferred Title Appeal No. 69 of 1989 before the District Judge, West Champaran at Bettiah for the rest of her claim. 6. By the impugned Judgment, the learned District Judge was pleased to set aside the trial Courts Judgment and decree and remanded the matter to the trial Court with a direction to the plaintiff to adduce fresh evidence after steps under Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure is taken by her and dispose of the suit afresh. 7. The plaintiff, has therefore, filed the present appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(u) of the Code of Civil Procedure. 8. The learned District Judge found that the Trial Courts decree against which no appeal was filed, was in executable as the extent of encroachment over Schedule II land was not ascertained on measurement by a Survey Knowing Pleader Commissioner. Further so far as the plaintiffs relief for removal of encroachment from the public Rasta, described in Schedule III of the plaint was concerned, the learned District Judge was of the opinion that since the suit was not filed in representative capacity, under Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code and even after filing of the suit no step was taken under Order 1 Rule 8 by the plaintiff, it was not possible to pass any effective decree in favour of the plaintiff. Even the Survey Khatiyan of the land in question was not brought on record. 9. For the aforesaid reasons the First appellate Court set aside the trial Courts Judgment and decree and remanded the matter giving an opportunity to the plaintiff to take steps under Order I Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure and thereafter to adduce further evidence, if any, so that the suit may be decided effectively afresh. 10. A perusal of the Judgment of the Trial Court shows that the Additional Munsif, Bettiah decided the suit in a perfunctory manner. Even if the defendant did not appear to contest the suit and the suit was being disposed of ex-parte, it was necessary for the trial Court to ascertain from the evidence on record brought by the plaintiff that the plaintiff was able to prove has case and claim. 11. It may be true that the plaintiff purchased Schedule I land. However, a portion thereof i.e., Schedule II land along with Public Rasta, Schedule III land was said to have been encroached by the defendant and as such to substantiate her claim, it was necessary to the plaintiff to first get ascertained the actual area said to be encroached upon, the appointment of a Survey Knowing Pleader Commissioner. The plaintiff may have sought for another relief for removal of alleged encroachment on the public land by the defendant resulting into blocking of her egress and ingress from orchard to road and for this too a report of the Commissioner was required to be brought on record. 12. Of course, in case the plaintiffs case was confined to infringement in his easementary right of passage to go on road from the orchard and there was no occasion for removal of any encroachment on public land then only there was no occasion for filing the suit under Order I Rule 8 of the Code. 13. In my opinion, if it is actually found that the defendant had encroached upon the public land, removal of the said encroachment at the instance of the plaintiff will certainly provide benefit to the public at large, who were using the public Rasta. 14. In the aforesaid, circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned Judgment. This appeal, is accordingly, dismissed, but without costs. 15. Let the records be sent down forthwith.