ORDER 1. Permission to file the special leave petition is granted. 2. Delay condoned in filing the application for substitution. 3. Application for substitution is allowed. 4. Leave granted. 5. The plaintiff-respondent (father of the respondents) had filed a suit being Suit No. 208 of 1994 in the Court of the Additional Senior Sub-Judge, Ajnala, seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendant-appellants permanently from dispossessing the respondent or from interfering with his peaceful possession of the plot of land measuring 17 marlas bearing Khata No. 442/1024, Khasra No. 95 min, situated in Village Chogawan, Tahsil Ajnala, District Amritsar, on which the respondent had built up a house. The aforesaid suit was disposed of on 31-10-1994 on a statement made/undertaking given by the appellants. The statement made/undertaking given by Defendants 1 and 2 (the appellants herein) was in the following terms: "We have no concern or connection with the disputed plot of land constituting Khasra No. 95 min (17 marl as) neither have we ever tried to dispossess the plaintiff from the same nor have we any intention to do so. We also shall not try to dispossess the plaintiff from the said plot of land.:' 6. The order dated 31-10-1994 passed by the Additional Senior Sub-Judge, Ajnala, reads thus: . "In view of the above statement/undertaking of the defendants, which shall be binding against them, this suit has become infructuous and accordingly stands dismissed. The file be consigned to the record room within a due period of time." 7. Subsequent to the decision in the suit, the respondent filed an application under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC with a prayer that the appellants had violated the undertaking given in Suit No. 208 of 1994 before the court and therefore the property of the appellants be attached and sold and, in case they fail to abide by the undertaking, they be sent to the civil prison. 8. The trial court dismissed the application, aggrieved against which the respondent filed Civil Revision No. 5980 of 1998 in the High Court. The High Court without recording a finding that the appellants had entered upon the suit land and put up construction subsequent to the undertaking given to the court, allowed the revision and directed the appellants to clear the encroachment effected by them on the suit land. The appellants were directed to remove the debris (malba) after demolishing the construction put up by them. The appellants were directed to remove the debris (malba) after demolishing the construction put up by them. 9. Being aggrieved against the order passed by the High Court, the present appeal has been filed. 10. Counsel for the parties have been heard at length. 11. In our view, the High Court has erred in giving the aforesaid direction without recording a finding that the construction put up by the appellants was subsequent to the undertaking given by them to the court on 31-10-1994. 12. Counsel for the parties have agreed that the order impugned before us be set aside and the case be remitted back to the High Court for a fresh decision in accordance with law. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and remit the case back to the High Court for a fresh decision in accordance with law. The High Court shall decide the revision on its own merits without being influenced by any of the observations made hereinabove. 13. The appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.