Judgment ( 1. ) IT is an appeal filed by the plaintiff against an order, dated 27-8-2001, passed by learned XIVth Additional District Judge, Indore in C. A. No. 38-A of 2001, which in turn arises out of Civil Suit No. 300-A of 1999, decided by 1st Civil Judge, Class II, Indore, on 22-8-2000. It seeks to challenge the remand order passed by the First Appellate Court when the First Appellate Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of Trial Court and remanded the case for fresh trial. The question that arise for consideration in this appeal is, whether remand order is justified on facts, or not ? ( 2. ) IT is not in dispute, that the issue involved in the suit out of which this appeal arises involves a case of encroachment. In other words, the dispute in the suit relates as to how much land is in possession of the defendant. According to plaintiff, it is a case of encroachment on his land whereas, defendant dispute this position. ( 3. ) IN a case of encroachment of land, where parties are unable to decide how much land is in possession of parties, as against the actual land, then in such cases, it is necessary to appoint a Commissioner to make the spot inspection and submit the report in relation to land belonging to parties to the suit so that one can find out the exact extent of land in possession of the parties. ( 4. ) IN the present case, Trial Court decreed the suit without there being any report of the Commissioner, nor any prayer to appoint a Commissioner was made to decide the extent of land in possession of the parties. In an appeal filed by the defendant, the First Appellate Court rightly came to a conclusion that a case of encroachment could not have been decided properly without there being an appointment of a Commissioner and call for his report with regard to the land in question. In the opinion of First Appellate Court, this was a fit case where Commissioner under Order 26 Rule 9 of CPC should have been appointed for calling his report by making the spot inspection and after demarcating the boundaries with respect to the sale deeds of the parties and then decide whether, plaintiff has encroached upon the land in question, or not. ( 5. ( 5. ) IN my opinion, therefore, impugned direction for appointment of a Commissioner and then deciding the dispute involved, can not be said to be arbitrary and illegal. Indeed, this has been the view of this Court in a case Durga Prasad v. Parveen Foujdar and Ors. , reported in 1975 MPLJ 801 , wherein Their Lordships have observed that in the absence of agreed map filed by the parties, appointment of Commissioner by the Court is the only remedy for deciding the actual case of encroachment. ( 6. ) I, therefore, do not find any merit in this appeal when it seeks to challenge the remand order by the First Appellate Court. I, accordingly, concur with the finding of the First Appellate Court and dismiss the appeal. Registry to remit the original file to the Trial Court immediately to enable him to proceed with the trial in accordance with the directions given by the First Appellate Court while remanding the case. Let it be completed by the Trial Court in accordance with the remand order within a period of six months. No costs.