JUDGMENT : SURESHWAR THAKUR, J. 1. The plaintiff's suit for rendition of a decree, for mandatory injunction, stood, decreed, by the learned trial Court. In an appeal carried therefrom, before the learned First Appellate Court, by the aggrieved defendant, the latter Court allowed his appeal besides obviously reversed the trial Court's judgment and decree. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the deceased plaintiff Jiwan Ram has filed the civil suit against the deceased defendant Madho Ram, for rendition of a decree for mandatory injunction with consequential relief of permanent prohibitory injunction with the averments that he is owner in possession over the suit land comprised in Khata No.73, Khatauni No.77, Khasra No.3, measuring 0-13-20 Hectares situated in MohalKhabyal, Mauza Lanz, Sub Tehsil Harchakian, Tehsil and District Kangra, H.P. The plaintiff has further pleaded that the defendant has no right, title and interest over the suit land, and, has threatened to enter upon the suit land and thereby to dispossess the plaintiff without right, title and interest. The plaintiff has further pleaded that the defendant has cut down the valuable bushes and levelled the boundary in order to change the nature of the suit land by raising construction as the defendant has collected the material over the suit land and threatened to raise construction. Hence the suit. 3. The defendant contested the suit and filed written statement, wherein, he has taken the preliminary objections, qua cause of action, jurisdiction, estoppal and maintainability. On merits, the defendant has admitted that the suit land as per the revenue entries to be correct and claimed that the suit land was government land and he is in possession over the suit land and has challenged the revenue entries to be wrong and illegal as per the factual position of the suit land. The defendant has denied any interference being caused by him over the suit land as pleaded in the plaint. It is claimed that his house is already situated over the suit land for the last 15 years with the knowledge of the plaintiff. 4. The plaintiff filed replication to the written statement of the defendant (s), wherein, he denied the contents of the written statement and re-affirmed and re-asserted the averments, made in the plaint. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court struck the following issues inter-se the parties at contest:- 1. 4. The plaintiff filed replication to the written statement of the defendant (s), wherein, he denied the contents of the written statement and re-affirmed and re-asserted the averments, made in the plaint. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court struck the following issues inter-se the parties at contest:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit land, as alleged?OPP. 2. Whether the defendant is interfering over the suit land, as alleged?OPP. 3. If issue No.2 is proved, whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief of injunction, as prayed for?OPP. 3A. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of mandatory injunction by way of demolition of structure raised by the defendant, if any over the suit land, during the pendency of the suit? OPP 4. Whether the plaintiff has got no cause of action to file the present suit?OPD. 5. Whether the suit land was earlierowned by the State of H.P. and the defendant is in its possession: If so what is its effect?OPD. 6. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form?OPD. 7. Relief. 6. On an appraisal of evidence, adduced before the learned trial Court, the latter Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff (s)/appellant (s)herein. In an appeal, preferred therefrom, by the defendant (s)/respondent (s) herein, before the learned First Appellate Court, the latter Court allowed the appeal, and, reversed the findings recorded by the learned trial Court. 7. Now plaintiff (s)/appellant (s) herein, hence institute the instant Regular Second Appeal, before this Court, wherein they assail the findings recorded, in its impugned judgment and decree, by the learned first Appellate Court. When the appeal came up for admission, on 28.08.2008, this Court, admitted the appeal instituted, by the plaintiff (s)/appellant (s) against the judgment and decree, rendered by the learned first Appellate Court, on the hereinafter extracted substantial questions of law:- (a) Whether the learned Appellate Court has ignored, mis-appreciated the EX.PW5/A as prepared by Shri Nek Ram Thakur, whereby there is a specific mention of encroachment made by the defendant over the suit land? (b) Whether in view of the judgment as passed by this Court and reported in AIR 2003 HP, page 73, the court below has wrongly allowed the appeal filed by the respondent? Substantial questions of Law No.1 and 2: 8. (b) Whether in view of the judgment as passed by this Court and reported in AIR 2003 HP, page 73, the court below has wrongly allowed the appeal filed by the respondent? Substantial questions of Law No.1 and 2: 8. Upon, well founded and valid reasons, as borne in paragraph No.16, of, the judgement and decree, as, impugned before this Court, (i) the learned First Appellate Court, has aptly discarded the report, of, the local commissioner concerned, as, borne in Ex.PW5/A, wherewith stood appended, a, tatima, borne in Ex.PW5/B. A reading of the afore para, borne in the verdict pronounced by the learned First Appellate Court, does withstand, the evidence rendered in consonance therewith, (ii) thereupon, this Court, is, of an utmost candid, and, formidable view qua, the, report, of, the demarcating officer concerned, borne in Ex.PW5/A, and, the recitals borne, in the apt tatima, as, embodied in Ex.PW5/B, not comprising the apt best evidence, for, hence pronouncing, any efficacious decree, of, mandatory injunction, vis-a-vis, the suit property rather it being both infirm and frail evidence. 9. Be that as it may, despite, any, frailty or lack of any probative vigour, vis-avis, afore exhibits, (I) the learned First Appellate Court, rather was enjoined to suo moto, even without, any application, cast under the provisions of Order 26, Rule 9, of, the CPC, hence proceed to appoint a Local Commissioner, for enabling the latter, rather conducting, a, fresh demarcation, in accordance with law, vis-a-vis, the contentious suit property, (i) and, thereafter, upon, the aggrieved therefrom apt litigating party, upon, rearing objections thereagainst before it, the learned First Appellate Court, was enjoined to relegate the lis to the learned trial Court, for, the latter proceeding to make, a, fresh decision, vis-a-vis, the validity, of the apt demarcation report, and, also, for, making a fresh decision, upon, the apt civil suit. However, the learned First Appellate Court, despite, in paragraph No.16 of the impugned verdict, noticing, a, gross pervasive infirmity being borne in EX.PW5/A, and, in the tatima appended therewith, borne in Ex.PW5/B, omitted to embark, upon, the aforesaid apt legal recoursings, hence, has facilitated, the, dispute inter se, the parties, to yet simmer, whereas, it was enjoined to put, it, to rest. 10. 10. Consequently, the omission aforesaid, of, the learned First Appellate Court, hence constrains this Court, to, in consonance, with, the verdict of this Court, rendered, in, a case titled as Bali Ram vs. Mela Ram and another, reported in AIR 2003 HP 87 , to, after quashing the impugned verdict, remand the matter to the learned First Appellate Court, (i) to, enable it, to, after appointing a Local Commissioner, for the latter hence demarcating in accordance, with law, the contentious suit property, rather, to obviously elicit from him an apt report, (ii) and, thereafter, upon, the Local Commissioner purveying therebefore its report, it shall permit the apt aggrieved litigant, to, rear objections therebefore, and, shall also pronounce a fresh decision, in accordance with law, upon, Civil Appeal No. 131-K/2002. The learned First Appellate Court is directed to complete the aforesaid exercise within six months from today. Consequently, both the substantial questions of law, are, answered accordingly. 11. In view of above discussion, the instant appeal is disposed of, in aforesaid manner, and, the judgment and decree rendered by the learned First Appellate Court in Civil Appeal No. 131-K/2002, is, quashed and set aside. The parties are directed to appear before the learned First Appellate Court, on, 28th September, 2018. All pending applications also stand disposed of. No order as to costs.