JUDGMENT Hon'ble Alok Singh, J. 1. Present appeal is filed against the judgment dated 05.10.2017 passed by Additional District Judge, Ranikhet, Almora in Civil Appeal No. 9 of 2016 whereby learned Addl. District Judge was pleased to set aside the judgment passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division) Ranikhet and remanded the matter back for re-hearing. 2. Brief facts of the present appeal are that respondent, herein, purchased a land, in dispute, measuring one Nali, bearing Khata No. 66, village – Bandhan, Patti – Valla Attagulli, Patwari area – Pantkotuli, Tehsil – Ranikhet, District Almora from one Sri Prakash Chandra by registered sale deed. On 19.01.2010, respondent applied for declaration of land as non agricultural land. Vide order dated 30.04.2010, Assistant Collector declared the land, in dispute, as non agricultural. It is the case of the respondent that appellant encroached upon the land, in dispute, measuring 11 X 2.25 sq. m. and constructed beams and pillars. Respondent filed civil suit in the court of Civil Judge (JD), Ranikhet. The court below ordered for survey commission. Survey commission submitted its report. Respondent submitted her objections against survey commission's report. The court below rejected the objections. The court below relying on the survey commission report decided the matter in favour of appellant. Feeling aggrieved, respondent approached Appellate Court. The Appellate Court set aside the judgment passed by court below and remanded the matter. Feeling aggrieved, appellant approached this Court. 3. Heard Mr. A.M. Saklani, Advocate for the appellant and Ms. Prabha Naithani, Advocate for respondent. 4. Mr. A. M. Saklani, Advocate for the appellant has submitted that respondent has not challenged survey commission report, therefore, it attained finality. He further submits that Appellate Court has no jurisdiction to remand the matter back. 5. I do not find any force in the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner. From perusal of the record, it transpires that respondent had filed objection against the survey commission report inter alia stating that map submitted by the Survey Commissioner in the court below did not contain the signature of respondent; disputed land was not properly located in the map. Even objections filed by the respondent were rejected by the lower court and on the basis of faulty Survey Commissioner's report passed the judgment. In my opinion, the lower court ought to have directed for further inquiry or shall appoint new Commission. Even objections filed by the respondent were rejected by the lower court and on the basis of faulty Survey Commissioner's report passed the judgment. In my opinion, the lower court ought to have directed for further inquiry or shall appoint new Commission. There is no reason to challenge the survey commissioner report separately, as it merged in the judgment passed by the trial court and the respondent had already challenged the judgment passed by the trial court. 6. So far as second argument of Mr. A.M. Saklani, Advocate for the appellant that Appellate Court has no jurisdiction to remand the matter back is concerned, in Order 26 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, power is given to the court that if Court is for any reason dissatisfied with the proceedings of the Commissioner, it may direct such further inquiry to be made as it shall think fit. Even otherwise, if there is dispute regarding boundaries of land or allegation of encroachment by the parties, the facts have to be verified physically. Measurement of land on the spot by a survey commissioner would serve the purpose. So in my view, survey commissioner report was necessary for proper adjudication of the case. 7. In view of the above, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment. Accordingly, appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.