Judgment : Heard Shri A.D. Bhobe, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants and Shri S. arvekar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents no.2 to 6. 2. The above appeal challenges the judgment dated 13/09/2006, passed by the earned Additional District Judge, South Goa at Margao in Civil Suit No.135/2004 (New) whereby the suit filed by the appellants came to be dismissed. 3. Shri A.D. Bhobe, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants has assailed the impugned judgment essentially on the ground that the suit filed by the appellants for declaration and injunction came to be dismissed on the ground that the appellants had not identified the suit property. The learned Counsel has further pointed out that during the pendency of the above appeal there were proceedings which were initiated by the appellants to partition the survey holdings in terms of the provisions of the Land Revenue Code and in such proceedings by judgment passed by the Administrative Tribunal dated 13/01/2011 in Land Revenue Appeal No.62/2005 preferred by the respondents came to be dismissed. The learned Counsel further pointed out that the order impugned in the said proceedings by the respondents was challenging the letter dated 11/11/2005 of the Conservator of Forest, South Goa, Margao whereby a partition of the suit property was ordered. The learned Counsel has further pointed out that between the appellants interse there was dispute with regard to the partitioning of the properties in common which included the disputed property and a decree of partition came to be passed by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division at Quepem. The learned Counsel further pointed out that in the said proceedings the learned Judge was directed by this Court to direct the Revenue Authorities to carry out such partition. In compliance with the said directions the said letter dated 11/11/2005 came to be issued by the Deputy Collector. It is further pointed out that the Forest Department sought to challenge the said order before the Administrative Tribunal in the said appeal which came to be dismissed and as such according to Shri Bhobe, the contention of the respondents that the property has not been identified cannot be accepted. The learned Counsel further pointed out that in view of these subsequent events the appellants should be given liberty to produce the said document and lead further evidence to substantiate their contention that the suit property belongs to the appellants. The learned Counsel further pointed out that in view of these subsequent events the appellants should be given liberty to produce the said document and lead further evidence to substantiate their contention that the suit property belongs to the appellants. The learned Counsel has taken me through the impugned judgment and pointed out that the learned Judge has erroneously come to the conclusion that the suit property has not been identified. The learned Counsel has further pointed out that the disputed property is the property surveyed under no.88/1 and 88/2 of Rivona village and according to the appellants an area of 32 hectors 3665 square metres forms part of the property of the appellants. 4. On the other hand, Shri S. Narvekar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents no. 2 to 6 has disputed the said contention. The learned Counsel has pointed out that the respondents have disputed that an area of 32 hectors 3665 square metres belongs to the appellants. The learned Counsel further pointed out that unless and until such area is identified the question of claiming any right therein by the appellants would not arise. The learned Counsel however does not dispute the fact that the dispute in the present case and the dispute which was the subject matter of the said appeal before the Administrative Tribunal was forming part and parcel of the suit property and that identification of the suit property is still under adjudication before the Revenue Authority. The learned Additional Government Advocate further submitted that in case the identification is carried out by competent authority and keeping the contention of the respondents open with regard to such identification the matter can be remanded to the learned District Judge to decide the suit afresh after giving liberty to both the parties to lead evidence. 5. On perusal of the impugned judgment, I find that the suit has been essentially dismissed on the ground that the appellants have failed to identify the suit property. 5. On perusal of the impugned judgment, I find that the suit has been essentially dismissed on the ground that the appellants have failed to identify the suit property. The learned Judge also found that the documents and evidence adduced by the appellants do not establish the identity of the suit property and consequently came to the conclusion that the appellants have failed to prove that portion of the property known as Pedamol admeasuring an area of 32 hectors and 3665 square metres has been wrongly included in the property surveyed under no.88/1 which stands in the name of the respondent no.3. On going through the judgment and the letter referred to by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants which came to be passed during the pendency of the above appeal, I find that the said observations of the learned Judge in the impugned judgment with regard to the identification of the suit property and the claim of the appellants would have to be reconsidered in the light of the said documents. No doubt all contentions raised by the respondents with regard to their claim and/or identity of the property as claimed by the appellants are left open to be considered by the learned Judge afresh in accordance with law. 6. Hence, taking into consideration the submissions of the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties specially the contention of the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents and without going into the merits of the rival contentions, I find it appropriate to remand the matter to the learned Judge to decide the said suit afresh. Hence, as such, I pass the following order. ORDER (i) The appeal is partly allowed. (ii) The impugned judgment dated 13/09/2006 is quashed and set aside. (iii) The Civil Suit No.135/2004 (new) is restored to the file of the Additional District Judge, South Goa, Margao. (iv) The learned Additional District Judge is directed to decide the said suit afresh in the light of the observations made herein above after giving both the parties an opportunity to lead further evidence in accordance with law. (v) All contentions with regard to the identification of the suit property as claimed by both the parties are left open. (vi) The appeal stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. (v) All contentions with regard to the identification of the suit property as claimed by both the parties are left open. (vi) The appeal stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. (vii) The parties are directed to appear before the learned District Judge on 21/01/2013 at 10.00 a.m.