JUDGMENT : DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL, J. 1. This Miscellaneous Appeal has been field by appellants aggrieved by the order passed in Civil Appeal No. 7-A/2014 by Second Additional District Judge Joura District Morena on 12.05.2014 by which judgment passed by Second Civil Judge Class II Joura in Civil Suit No. 8-A/2012 on 07.02.2014 was set-aside and matter was remanded back to the trial Court for getting the disputed property demarcated by Superintendent, Land Record Morena and thereafter pass appropriate judgment. 2. In brief facts of the case are that appellants have filed a civil suit for permanent injunction against respondents in regard to the land situated at Mouja Sankara Pargana Survey No. 5 the area of which was 4 bigha 3 viswa out of which 1 bigha 13 viswa was acquired for canal and remaining area is 2 bigha and 10 viswa. The Joura-Runipur road passed through survey No. 5 due to which the disputed property is in two parts. 8 Biswa portion of the land is situated in the north side towards Narua and Road. Plaintiff on 27.08.2010 purchased 8 viswa land situated on north side towards Narua and Road of Survey No. 5 area 2 bigha 10 viswa from respondents and took possession over the said land. Adjacent to the aforesaid land, land of respondents is situated. They want to pass tractor from the aforesaid 8 viswa land of plaintiff despite they are having way from Ranipur Road. The aforesaid part of land 8 viswa has been given by plaintiff on batai to Vidyaram. Thereafter on 26.09.2011, respondent tried to pass his tractor from the aforesaid land for which bataidar Vidyaram objected due to which they started abusing him. Thereafter, petitioner lodged a report at Public Meeting on 27.09.2011 with SDO Joura. Tahsildar Joura submitted an inquiry report on the same day due to this they had to file a civil suit for permanent injunction. 3. Respondents denied plaint averment of plaintiff and stated that land which was purchased by plaintiff on 27.08.2010 is the land of irrigation department, boundaries of which are wrongly recorded in revenue records. Proposed respondents had not right to sell the aforesaid disputed land. Plaintiffs are in possession of disputed 8 viswa land. In the aforesaid land, during rainy season water accumulates due to which during rainy season nobody can go through from the aforesaid land. In the dry season, water is evaporated. Proposed respondents had not right to sell the aforesaid disputed land. Plaintiffs are in possession of disputed 8 viswa land. In the aforesaid land, during rainy season water accumulates due to which during rainy season nobody can go through from the aforesaid land. In the dry season, water is evaporated. They use the aforesaid land for the purpose of way. Regarding aforesaid disputed land one Narendra Kumar Tyagi President, Irrigation Department had filed an application for correction in revenue record and for separate partition due of which one revenue case No. 01/11-12 was registered. Thereafter on 13.08.2012, order was passed by which aforesaid land was mutated as land belongs to Government Chambal Canal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that learned trial Court rightly decreed the case coming to the conclusion that disputed land 8 viswa is in the ownership and in possession of appellants. Despite this, learned Appellate Court remitted back the case for further demarcation. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that there is a dispute regarding demarcation. Learned Appellate Court rightly remitted back the case for proper demarcation of the disputed land. Hence no interference is called for. 6. It is not disputed that petitioner/plaintiff had purchased the land 8 Biswa from formal respondent and two others by registered sale deed on 27.08.2010 in Rs.70400/- situated at Mouja Sankara Pargana Joura Survey No. 5 total area 2 Bigha 10 Viswa and got possession. Afterwards one Virendra Singh Tyagi, President Irrigation Department has submitted an application before Tahsildar for doing Batankan of irrigation land acquired i.e. 1 Bigha 13 Viswa which was allowed. 7. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, petitioner preferred an appeal before SDO Joura. SDO Joura found that Tahsildar has not properly assessed the case and remitted back for proper adjudication. As per judgment of Appellate Court, plaintiff preferred an application on 31.10.2011 under order 26 Rule 9 CPC. On their application, Shri Raj Kumar Kulshreshtha, Advocate was appointed as Commissioner. Thereafter he submitted a report which was replied by respondents. Thereafter on 04.02.2013, the Court recalled the ex-parte order regarding appointment of Commissioner and report of Commissioner was not accepted. During appeal, respondent-defendants has submitted an application under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC for appointing a Commissioner which was objected by plaintiff on the ground that for collection of evidence Commissioner cannot be appointed. Thereafter on 04.02.2013, the Court recalled the ex-parte order regarding appointment of Commissioner and report of Commissioner was not accepted. During appeal, respondent-defendants has submitted an application under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC for appointing a Commissioner which was objected by plaintiff on the ground that for collection of evidence Commissioner cannot be appointed. First Appellate Court has found that there is no map regarding land situated at survey No. 5/1 Rakwa 8 Viswa that disputed land in included in the said survey number or not. As per trial Court judgment, it is not clear whether disputed land 8 vigha is situated at northern or southern portion of canal. In this situation, without calling report of Commissioner, matter cannot be decided. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon the decision of coordinate bench of this Court rendered in Shivdayal vs. Meena Bai, 2014 (5) MPHT 306 and Murarilal vs. Ram Kumar Ojha and Another, decided on 20.08.2014 in M.P. No. 788/2010. 9. The decision of Allahbad High Court in Gajraj and Others vs. Ramadhar and Others, AIR 1975 All. 406 is also relied upon, the relevant portion of which is reproduced below: “4.....In my view that provision will not be applicable to a case where the Court itself desires a local inspection of the spot to be made and in such a situation the court can act under Order 26, Rule 9, Civil Procedure Code. It cannot be denied that an appellate Court has the power to issue a commission for local inspection in the same manner in which a trial court can act under Order 26, Rule 9, Civil Procedure Code. This follows from Section 107, Civil Procedure Code and if any authority be needed, then a reference can be made to Ram Dihal Lal vs. Lakhpal Lal, AIR 1932 All. 270 . In my view 1971 All LJ 244 (supra) does not support the contention raised by Sri Chaudhary. It was observed there as under: “Issue of a commission is something which is quite different from production of a document or examination of a witness. Provisions regarding issue of a commission are to be found in Order 26 of the Code. In my view 1971 All LJ 244 (supra) does not support the contention raised by Sri Chaudhary. It was observed there as under: “Issue of a commission is something which is quite different from production of a document or examination of a witness. Provisions regarding issue of a commission are to be found in Order 26 of the Code. Rule 9 of Order 26 provides that in any suit in which the Court deems a local investigation to be requisite or proper for the purpose of elucidating any matter in dispute, the court may issue a commission to such person as it thinks fit directing him to make such investigation and to report thereon to the court.” 10. The decision of coordinate Bench of this Court at Indore in M.A. No. 2576/2021 (Suresh Chandra and Others vs. Giriraj Singh and Others) on 04.04.2022 has also relied upon. The relevant portion of this judgment is reproduced below: “16. The lower appellate Court has set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and has remanded the matter back to it for impleadment of new defendants and affording them opportunity of hearing and deciding the matter afresh in accordance with law. From the impugned order it cannot be gathered as to under what provision the remand has been made by the lower appellate Court. Remand could have been made by it under the provisions of Order 41 Rule 23 to Rule 29 of the CPC. Rule 23 would not be applicable as the trial Court had not disposed off the suit on a preliminary issue. Rule 23-A would also not be applicable as the lower appellate Court has not gone into the merits of the case and has not reversed the decree upon which a retrial has been deemed necessary. Only application for impleadment of parties has been allowed and matter has been remanded back. Thus the remand as directed by the lower appellate Court is not in conformity with the provisions of Order 41 of the CPC. A remand can be made by the appellate Court only under the circumstances and eventualities as contemplated under Rule 23 to Rule 29 of Order 41 of the CPC and not beyond it. The impugned order does not fall under any of the aforesaid provisions.” 11. A remand can be made by the appellate Court only under the circumstances and eventualities as contemplated under Rule 23 to Rule 29 of Order 41 of the CPC and not beyond it. The impugned order does not fall under any of the aforesaid provisions.” 11. Learned counsel for the appellant has also relied upon the decision of coordinate Bench of this Court rendered in Ramgopal vs. Sooratram, 1997 (1) MPWN 128 , relevant portion of which is reproduced below: “As regards second question of law the appeal preferred by any of the defendants is maintainable. It is not the law that when a decree passed against number of defendants, one defendant can not file an appeal. The question of law is misconceived in view of the provision of order 41 Rule 33 of CPC, which provide the power to the Appellate Court in view of provision of Rule 33 of Order 41 of CPC. This question of law is answered in negative.” 12. On going through the plaint and WS and document annexed with the plaint, this Court is of the opinion that without demarcation report regarding situation of disputed land, any relief cannot be granted. 13. It is not disputed that plaintiff purchased the disputed land from formal respondents but the controversy is that whether aforesaid land 8 Viswa situated in southern side of canal and whether proposed respondent had a right to sell the aforesaid land and whether as per sale deed plaintiffs are in possession of suit land. In the aforesaid situation, learned First Appellate Court has rightly allowed the application under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC filed by defendant. 14. In view of above, no case for interference is made out. Accordingly, present appeal stands dismissed.