JUDGMENT : The present appeal relates to a dispute arising out of certificate sale of certain property of the respondent no.4 effected by public auction. Respondent No.5 was the purchaser of the property in public auction. The said property in turn was sold to the appellant on the basis of auction which took place on 7th September, 1999. The auction purchaser obtained possession of the subject property and had also got his name mutated on the basis of sale certificate issued in the year 2000. He, in turn had transferred the property in favour of the appellant by a registered deed of sale dated 23rd February, 2007. In the meantime, the respondent no.4 had preferred an appeal assailing the decision of the Certificate Officer. This was registered as Certificate Appeal No.126-R-15/2001-02 in the Court of the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi. The appeal was allowed by the Deputy Commissioner. Thereafter, record was put up before the Certificate Officer. The appellant claims to have had notice of the appellate proceeding when she was served with a notice dated 7th February, 2015 by the Circle Officer directing her to vacate the subject-property. 2. The appellant thereafter invoked the constitutional writ jurisdiction of this Court by filing a writ petition, out of which this appeal arises. The learned First Court set aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner in Certificate Appeal No.126-R-15/2001-02 as well as consequential order dated 1st March, 2013 and 20th January, 2014 passed by District Certificate Officer, Ranchi in Certificate Case No. 33 of 1985- 86 and also set aside the order dated 7th February, 2015 issued by the Circle Officer, Namkum by which the appellant was directed to vacate the premises by 31st March, 2015. The matter was remitted to the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi to hear it afresh upon impleading auction purchaser and subsequent purchaser as party-respondents. It is also recorded in the judgment under appeal that all the parties had agreed to appear before the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi and we are apprised by the learned counsel for the parties that such appearance was made. The appellant has prepared this appeal as she is apprehensive that in the event the certificate sale is ultimately invalidated, her title to the said property would be in jeopardy. The appellant has prepared this appeal as she is apprehensive that in the event the certificate sale is ultimately invalidated, her title to the said property would be in jeopardy. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has further argued that since his client had purchased the property through registered deed, invalidation thereof can take place only through a civil action in a court of competent civil jurisdiction and not by the Certificate Court or the Appellate Body thereof. Main contention of the appellant is that her title in the subject-property has crystalised on the basis of the registered sale deed and only a Court of competent civil jurisdiction can make any adjudication on that aspect. The Certificate Court, according to the appellant does not have any jurisdiction to examine legality of her title. In our opinion, this appeal is premature as the matter has only been remitted to the Deputy Commissioner and no decision has been taken on substantive right or title of the parties. The appellant shall be entitled to take all the points raised in this appeal and the Deputy Commissioner shall decide the appeal in accordance with the law. In the event any adverse order is passed against the appellant, it shall always be open to her to question such order before the appropriate legal forum. With this direction, the present appeal along with the stay petition (I.A. No.5045 of 2018) shall stand disposed of.