JUDGMENT Bhaskar Raj Pradhan, J. - The defendants are in appeal against a judgment rendered by the learned District Judge, South Sikkim at Namchi (learned Trial Judge) in a title suit filed by the respondent herein as the plaintiff. 2. The facts relevant to decide the present appeal are as under: (a) The respondent who was the plaintiff in title suit no. 2 of 2017 approached the court with a suit for declarations, injunctions and other consequential reliefs. It was the respondent's case that he had purchased plot no. 311, 312 and 313 ad-measuring 0.5960 hectare, 0.0460 hectare and 0.1.1140 hectare totalling to 1.7560 hectare (4.3391 acres) at Samardung falling under Burul Block, Elakha Bermoik, District Namchi, South Sikkim vide registered sale deed bearing book no.1, volume no.2, sl. No.32 registered on 17.01.2013 in the office of the sub registrar from one Smt. Jhumki Doma Bhutiani and became the absolute owner of the suit land. (b) The respondent further pleaded that after the purchase of the suit land he had been in its unencumbered physical possession on and from 09.10.2012. It is the respondent's case that he has since demarcated the disputed suit land with the help of the concerned authority, fenced it wherever it was possible and carried out various development works thereon. (c) It is pleaded that in the year 2016 the Energy and Power Department, Government of Sikkim (defendant no.3) had identified the suit land for construction of 66 KV sub-station under 'Comprehensive Scheme for Strengthening of T & D lines and sub-stations in Sikkim' for M/s Power Grid Corporation of India Limited. The correspondence exchanges between the department of the government were annexed in support thereof. The respondent asserted that the letter dated 01.12.2016 written by the Sub-Registrar/Sub-Divisional Magistrate (defendant no.4) to defendant no.3 clearly mentioned the suit land had been found recorded in the name of the respondent. It was his case that the authorities concerned processed the file for fixation of rate of the suit land which was also approved by the Land Revenue and Disaster Management Department. The land rate so fixed and approved was Rs.490 per square feet. It is the respondent's case that thereafter, the defendant no.4, vide letter dated 09.05.2017, sought the issuance of a No Objection Certificate as per the land survey records of 1951-52 and 1979-80 cadastral survey. The land rate so fixed and approved was Rs.490 per square feet. It is the respondent's case that thereafter, the defendant no.4, vide letter dated 09.05.2017, sought the issuance of a No Objection Certificate as per the land survey records of 1951-52 and 1979-80 cadastral survey. It was asserted that the competent authority i.e. the Land Revenue Department vide Notification No.991/D.D.L.R. dated 17.01.1984 had clearly mentioned that the old land records of 1951 shall cease to be in operation and the new 1979-80 land records shall come into force. It was also asserted in the plaint that the respondent had made detailed inquiries with the concerned authority before purchasing the suit land and came to know that the suit land was once recorded in the name of Bishnu Prasad Sharma, S/o of Late Laldas Sharma vide khatiyan no.31, who had then sold the same to Shri Ong Tshering Bhutia S/o Late Inchung Tok Tok vide registered sale deed bearing book no. A, serial no.163 page no.1117 volume no.1 pages no.163 (26) on 11.07.1990 in the office of the defendant no.4. Thereafter, the suit land was sold by Shri Ong Tshering Bhutia to Ms. Donkala Bhutia vide registered sale deed bearing book no. A, serial no.753, page no.141 on 01.03.2005 in the office of the defendant no.4. Ms. Donkala Bhutia thereafter, sold the suit property to Ms. Jumki Doma Bhutia vide registered sale deed bearing book no.I, volume no.3 sl. no.40 on 16.11.2011. It was the further case of the respondent that the office of the District Collector, Namchi had carried out extensive search of the suit land and thereafter, issued a search and Non- Encumbrance Certificate bearing Memo No.2228 DCS (Ref) dated 27.11.2007 followed by a spot verification report dated 23.04.2010. The relevant documents were also annexed. The copy of the sale deed in favour of Ms. Jhumki Doma Bhutiani were also relied upon. The relevant documents were also annexed. The copy of the sale deed in favour of Ms. Jhumki Doma Bhutiani were also relied upon. It transpires that thereafter, the process of purchase of the suit land came to a standstill and ultimately a notice was issued by the appellant no.1 dated 30.06.2017 in which it was alleged that the respondent had encroached forest land to the extent of 3.23 acres which led to the filing of the present suit seeking various declarations as under: '(i) declaring that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the entire suit land; (ii) declaring that the defendant no.1 had no right/authority to issue letter bearing reference No.369/DFO(T)/S dated 30.06.2017; (iii) declaring letter bearing reference No.369/DFO (T)/S dated 30.06.2017 issued by the defendant no.1 as illegal and to set aside, quash and cancel the same; (iv) declaring that the plaintiff be compensated by defendant no.1 and 2 for the loss suffered due to non purchase/acquisition of the suit land by defendant no.3 due to the illegal intervention of defendant no.1; (v) directing defendant no.4 to complete the process of registration of portion of the suit land in favour of defendant no.3; (vi) permanent injunction restraining the defendant no.3 from purchasing/acquiring another land for the construction of 66 KV sub-station under 'Comprehensive scheme for strengthening of T & D lines and Sub-station in Sikkim'; (vii) ad-interim injunction in terms of prayer no.(v) above. (viii) Costs of the proceedings; (ix) Any other relief/s as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the matter.' 3. The defendant nos.1 and 2 filed their written statement. The defendant nos.1 and 2, inter alia, pleaded as under: '(i) The Forests, Env. & Wildlife Management Department, Government of Sikkim relies on the Cadastral Survey Record of 1950-52 for authenticity of any land record. Any land which has been recorded as forest land in the record of rights of 1950-52 cadastral survey shall be deemed to be a forest land. (ii) The suit land in question is situated at Samardung, Burul Block, South Sikkim which was covered by plot nos. 170/171 as per the 1950-52 cadastral survey record which got re- numbered as plot nos. 311, 312 and 313 as per the cadastral survey record of 1979-80. (ii) The suit land in question is situated at Samardung, Burul Block, South Sikkim which was covered by plot nos. 170/171 as per the 1950-52 cadastral survey record which got re- numbered as plot nos. 311, 312 and 313 as per the cadastral survey record of 1979-80. (iii) That on 21/10/2016, there was a joint survey/inspection of the suit land by the representatives of the Forest Department, Land Revenue & Disaster Management Department and Power & Energy Department, Government of Sikkim in presence of the land owners. In the said survey/inspection, the following facts were revealed; (a) As per the cadastral Survey Report of 1950-52, the parts of the suit land covered by plot no.170/171with an area 1.10 acres was found recorded in the name of one Shri Hari Krishna Sharma, son of Shri Bishnu Prasad Sharma. (b) During the cadastral survey of 1979- 80, the same plot of land was renumbered as plot nos.311, 312 and 313 measuring an area 4.33 acres and found recorded in the name of Shri Bishnu Prasad Sharma, son of Lal Das Sharma. Said Bishnu Prasad Sharma had sold the said land to different individuals and now it is finally recorded in the name of Shri Ashok Tshering Bhutia (plaintiff), son of A.C. Bhutia. (c) From the above fact it is evident that the area of the suit land as per 1950-52 record was 1.10 acres and as per 1979-80 the area of the suit land was 4.33 acres resulting an excess area of 3.23 acres. (4.33 minus 1.10 =3.23) The excess area of 3.23 acres of land was recorded as Reserve Forest as per the land records of 1950-52. A copy of the said Joint Inspection Report and Map are annexed herewith as Annexure-D 1 collectively, in 3 pages. iv. Therefore, the answering defendants would submit that the portion of the suit land measuring an excess area 3.23 acres of land falls under the part and parcel of Tsalumthang Reserve Forest (RF) under Burul Block, South Sikkim and the remaining area of 1.10 acres of land is a private holding. v. it is submitted that said Bishnu Prasad had sold out the suit lands to different individuals. Therefore, in the different sale transactions from time to time, the portion of the said Reserve Forest having an area 3.23 acres was also erroneously got recorded in the name of private individuals from Reserve Forest. v. it is submitted that said Bishnu Prasad had sold out the suit lands to different individuals. Therefore, in the different sale transactions from time to time, the portion of the said Reserve Forest having an area 3.23 acres was also erroneously got recorded in the name of private individuals from Reserve Forest. The Land Revenue Department may explain the status and area of the suit land more clearly being the custodian and mother department of all the land records of Sikkim. vi. It is submitted that on the basis of the said Joint Inspection Report, the then Divisional Forest Officer (T), South issued a 'Notice' dated 30/06/2017 to the plaintiff for immediate release of 3.23 acres of land (plot 311, 312, 312) which was registered in his name. It is further submitted that the in the said notice, the then DFO has clearly directed the plaintiff to evacuate the aforesaid forest land immediately and take necessary action for de-registration from his possession. The plaintiff did not comply with the said direction instead filed the suit to harass the answering defendants. The copy of the said notice is annexed herewith as Annexure D2. ..................' 4. The appellants also made a counter claim and sought the following reliefs: '(i) A decree declaring that the defendant nos. 1 and 2 are the absolute owners of the excess area of 3.23 acres of land which was recorded as Reserve Forest as per the land records of 1950-52. (ii) A decree declaring that the plaintiff is liable to be evicted from the forest land. (iii) A decree for the cost of the proceedings. (iv) A decree for any other relief or reliefs for which the defendant nos. 1 and 2 may be entitled to.' 5. In the counter claim it was once again specifically pleaded as under: '25. That over and above what have been stated in the written statement, the answering defendant puts their case by way of counter claim. 26. That the answering defendant is the exclusive owner of the portion of the suit land as per the cadastral survey operation of 1950-52. 27. From the Joint Inspection Report dated 21/10/2016, it is evident that the area of the suit land as per 1950-52 record was 1.10 acres and as per 1979-80 the area of the suit land was 4.33 acres resulting an excess area of 3.23 acres. 27. From the Joint Inspection Report dated 21/10/2016, it is evident that the area of the suit land as per 1950-52 record was 1.10 acres and as per 1979-80 the area of the suit land was 4.33 acres resulting an excess area of 3.23 acres. The excess area of 3.23 acres of land was recorded as Reserve Forest as per the land records of 1950-52. A copy of the said Joint Inspection Report along with maps of 1950-52 and 1979-80 is already annexed as Annexure-D1. 28. Therefore, it is clear that the suit land measuring an excess area 3.23 acres of land falls under the part and parcel of Tsalamthang, Reserve Forest under Burul Block, Bermiok, South Sikkim and the remaining area of 1.10 acres is a private holding. 29. It is submitted that on the basis of the said Joint Inspection Report, the defendant no.1 (Divisional Forest Officer, T), South issued a 'Notice' dated 30/06/2017 to the plaintiff for immediate release of 3.23 acres of land (plot 311, 312, 312) which was registered in his name. It is further submitted that the in the said notice, the defendant no.1 has clearly directed the plaintiff to evacuate the aforesaid forest land immediately and take necessary action for de-registration from his record/possession. It is submitted that the plaintiff has not complied with the said direction. The copy of the said notice is already annexed herewith as Annexure-D2. 30. The said Bishnu Prasad Sharma had sold out the suit lands to different individuals. Therefore, in the different sale transactions from time to time, the portion of the said Reserve Forest having an area 3.23 was also erroneously got recorded in the name of private individuals from Reserve Forest.' 6. The defendant no.3 and 4 also filed their respective written statements. 7. On 20.09.2018 the learned Trial Judge framed the following 8 issues: '(1) Whether the present suit is maintainable in its present form or not? (Onus on Plaintiff). (2) Whether the Defendant No. 1, 2 & 3 are liable to pay the compensation to the Plaintiff? (Onus on Plaintiff). (3) Whether the suit is barred by law of limitation? (Onus on Defendants). (4) Whether the excess land/area of 3.23 acres is a reserve forest land as per the cadastral survey record of 1950-52 and whether the Plaintiff is in possession of the said excess land? (Onus on Defendants). (Onus on Plaintiff). (3) Whether the suit is barred by law of limitation? (Onus on Defendants). (4) Whether the excess land/area of 3.23 acres is a reserve forest land as per the cadastral survey record of 1950-52 and whether the Plaintiff is in possession of the said excess land? (Onus on Defendants). (5) Whether the suit of the Plaintiff grossly suffer from mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary party? (Onus on Defendants). (6) Whether the forest land can be transferred, alienated or de-reserved in terms of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 without prior approval of the Central Government? (onus on Defendants no.1 and 2) (7) Whether the Defendant no.1 had the right, authority to issue letter bearing reference no. 369/DFO(D)/S dated 30.06.2017 and if so, whether it was issued bonafide or with ulterior motive? (onus on Plaintiff) (8) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to any other relief or reliefs?' 8. The respondent examined himself and substantially stated what was asserted in the plaint. Rishi Raj Pradhan and Munna Kumar Pradhan, were also examined as plaintiff's witnesses and examined on behalf of the appellants. Peggyla Tshering Venchungpa, the Divisional Forest Officer (Territorial Circle) South Division, Namchi under the Forests and Environment Department, Government of Sikkim (defendant no.2) deposed on behalf of the appellants. Ashish Gurung, Range Officer (Territorial Circle) North Division at Mangan along with Krishan Kumar Pradhan, the Divisional Engineer of the Energy and Power Department were also examined on behalf of the appellants. 9. The learned Trial Judge rendered his judgment dated 24.12.2019 on all 8 issues. 10. Issue no.1, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8 were held against the appellants. Issue no.2 and 6 were held against the respondent. Resultantly, the learned Trial Judge declared the respondent the absolute owner of the entire suit land and that the appellant no.1 had no right to issue letter dated 30.06.2017 which was declared null and void. The appellants are aggrieved by the judgment and have preferred the present appeal. There is no cross appeal by the respondent. 11. Heard the learned Additional Advocate General for the appellants as well as Mr. T.B. Thapa learned Senior Advocate for the respondent. The learned counsel for the appellants raises a pertinent issue. It is her case that the assertion made by the appellants in the written statement regarding the suit land is not traversed by the respondent. 11. Heard the learned Additional Advocate General for the appellants as well as Mr. T.B. Thapa learned Senior Advocate for the respondent. The learned counsel for the appellants raises a pertinent issue. It is her case that the assertion made by the appellants in the written statement regarding the suit land is not traversed by the respondent. What was asserted in the written statement was that the suit land which was covered by plot no.170/171 as per the 1950-52 cadastral survey record got renumbered as plot no.311, 312 and 313 in the cadastral survey record of 1979-80. On 21.10.2016 there was a joint survey/inspection of the suit land by the representatives of the Forest Department, Land Revenue & Disaster Management Department, Power and Energy Department, Government of Sikkim and the present land owners. In the survey/inspection the following facts were revealed: (i) As per land records of 1950-52 plot no.170/171 with an area of 1.10 acres was recorded in the name of Shri Hari Krishna Sharma son of Shri Bishnu Prasad Sharma. (ii) The same plot was recorded in the name of Bishnu Prasad Sharma, son of Lal Das Sharma, as per the land records of 1979-80 and bears plot nos. 311, 312 and 313 measuring an area of 4.33 acres. It is clearly seen that there is an excess of 3.23 acres of land as compared to the land records of 1950-52, the excess land as per the land records of 1950-52 is a reserve forest. Bishnu Prasad Sharma had sold this said land to different individuals and now it is finally recorded in the name of respondent. The same land is proposed for the establishment of power sub-station by the Energy and Power Department. 12. According to the learned counsel for the appellants the failure to traverse these facts by the respondent amount to an admission. It is also submitted that although the same averment was made by the appellants in the counter claim preferred by them no written statement was filed by the respondent once again clearly amounting to admission on the failure of the respondent to deny the specific averments made. It is also submitted that although the same averment was made by the appellants in the counter claim preferred by them no written statement was filed by the respondent once again clearly amounting to admission on the failure of the respondent to deny the specific averments made. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that no specific issue with regard to the transaction between the son Hari Krishna Sharma and the father Bishnu Prasad Sharma which ultimately resulted in acquiring the excess suit land had been framed by the learned Trial Judge and therefore, there is no examination of this aspect which is the central issue. 13. The learned counsel for the appellants seeks to rely upon the following judgments in support of her contentions. M. Venkataramana Hebbar v. M. Rajagopal Hebbar & Ors. (2007) 6 SCC 401 ; Prahlad Pradhan & Ors. v. Sonu Kumhar & Ors. (2019) 10 SCC 259 ; Prabhagiya Van Adhikari Awadh Van Prabhag v. Arun Kumar Bhardwaj 2021 SCC OnLine SC 868. 14. Mr. T.B. Thapa, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent, vehemently supported the impugned judgment. He submits that the judgment of the learned Trial Judge is sound, well reasoned and must be upheld. He further submits that although the appellants had pleaded those facts in the written statement one must be conscious of the prayer made by them in the counter claim. If one were to examine the prayers in the counter claim and more specifically the first relief sought i.e. a declaration that defendant nos.1 and 2 are the absolute owners of the excess area of 3.23 acres of land which was recorded as reserved forest as per the land record of 1950-52 it would be evident that the learned Trial Judge was not beyond reason not to consider those averments in the written statement as well as counter claim. 15. While examining issue no.4 the learned Trial Judge recorded the case of the plaintiff as well as the defendants, the evidence produced by them both oral and documentary. The learned Trial Judge also recorded the submission of the appellants that exhibit D-8 clearly shows that the area of plot no.170/171 as per 1950-52 record shows that the land owned by Hari Krishna Sharma son of Bishnu Prasad Sharma was only 1.10 acres. 16. The learned Trial Judge also recorded the submission of the appellants that exhibit D-8 clearly shows that the area of plot no.170/171 as per 1950-52 record shows that the land owned by Hari Krishna Sharma son of Bishnu Prasad Sharma was only 1.10 acres. 16. The learned Trial Judge concluded that the suit land was once recorded in the name of Bishnu Prasad Sharma which was ultimately purchased by the respondent after it was sold by Bishnu Prasad Sharma to Ong Tshering Bhutia who then sold it to Donkala Bhutia who further sold it to Jumki Doma Bhutia, the last purchaser of the suit land who sold it to the respondent. The learned Trial Judge held that the evidence led by the respondent and his witnesses could not be demolished by the appellants. On examination of exhibit-D-8 (collectively) the learned Trial Judge held that the same did not record the suit land as reserved forest. The learned Trial Judge held that the No Objection Certificate (exhibit-21) issued by the Assistant Conservator of Forest (T) at the time of registration of suit land in favour of the respondent, clearly proved that the suit land did not fall within forest land. The learned Trial Judge also noted the admission of the appellant no.1, during cross- examination, that the forest department had not filed any ownership document to show that suit land was owned by the forest department. The learned Trial Judge doubted the joint inspection report (exhibit-D-1) as he found that the respondent was neither present during the joint inspection nor had he signed it. The learned Trial Judge relied upon Government Gazette dated 4th February 1984 (exhibit-11) stating that in pursuance of Notification No.144/83-84/I R./163/Gen/Est. dated 29.11.83 it is notified that the old land records of 1951 which was in existence in the State of Sikkim shall cease to be in operation and new land record shall come into force with immediate effect. The learned Trial Judge thus concluded that the respondent has proved that he is the absolute owner of the suit land and the appellants had failed to prove its ownership or the fact that the suit land fell under 'reserved forest'. 17. The learned Trial Judge thus concluded that the respondent has proved that he is the absolute owner of the suit land and the appellants had failed to prove its ownership or the fact that the suit land fell under 'reserved forest'. 17. The learned Trial Judge, however, did not come to any finding as to how the suit land which was originally recorded in the name of Hari Krishna Sharma, son of Bishnu Prasad Sharma to be 1.10 acres became 4.33 acres in the name of Bishnu Prasad Sharma. The records revealed that the appellants had taken a specific plea both in the written statement as well as in the counter claim as above. The records also revealed that the respondent did not file any written statement to the counter claim. Besides issue no.4, no specific issue was framed by the learned Trial Judge on this aspect. Resultantly, there is no finding on this aspect. 18. The learned Senior Counsel for the respondent submits that it is not an inflexible rule that in every case the doctrine of non traverse would be applied on the ground that no pleadings have been filed to meet the opponents case: more so in a case where the original suit is instituted by the party proposed to be penalised by the non traverse. 19. A perusal of the plaint reveals that the respondent was aware of the fact that Bishnu Prasad Sharma was the original seller of the suit land which was ultimately purchased by the respondent. There is no assertion with regard to the transaction between Hari Krishna Sharma, the son and Bishnu Prasad Sharma, the father. According to the appellants the area of 1.10 acres of suit land recorded in the name of Hari Krishna Sharma in the khasra records of 1950-52 had become 4.33 acres in the name of Bishnu Prasad Sharma in the khasra records of 1979-80. The narration of facts in the plaint does not reveal that the respondent had knowledge about this transaction. The fact was that the appellants had asserted so in the written statement and the counter claim and it was not disputed by the respondent by filing a written statement to the counter claim. Failure to dispute a fact not known to the respondent ought not to visit him with an adverse finding. The fact was that the appellants had asserted so in the written statement and the counter claim and it was not disputed by the respondent by filing a written statement to the counter claim. Failure to dispute a fact not known to the respondent ought not to visit him with an adverse finding. In such circumstances, it would be open still for the learned Trial Judge to frame a specific issue and seek evidence. Uncertainty of facts troubles the judicial mind. As noticed above, although the learned Trial Judge noted the assertion of the appellants on this aspect, he failed to render a finding on it. Order VIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) provides that denial must be specific. Rule 5 thereof provides that every allegation of fact in the plaint, if not denied specifically or by necessary implication, or stated to be not admitted in the pleading of the defendant, shall be taken to be admitted. However, the proviso thereof grants discretion to the court to require any fact so admitted to be proved otherwise then by such admission. Order VIII Rule 5 (2) CPC further provides that where the defendants had not filed the pleading, it shall be lawful for the court to pronounce judgment on the basis of the facts contained in the plaint, except as against a person under a disability, but the court may, in its discretion, require any such fact to be proved. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the learned Trial Judge could have exercised this discretion by framing a specific issue and permitting the appellants to lead evidence to prove it. The failure to do so has resulted in this factual uncertainty. Admittedly, the suit land passed on from Bishnu Prasad Sharma to the respondent after several sale transactions. Although the respondent has exhibited and produced records of transaction between Bishnu Prasad Sharma to Ong Tshering Bhutia, Ong Tshering Bhutia to Donkala Bhutia and from Donkala Bhutia to Jumki Doma Bhutia, there is no record of transaction between Hari Krishna Sharma and Bishnu Prasad Sharma. There is also no record of any title deed in favour of Bishnu Prasad Sharma, the original seller. The only document which are on record are the khasra/khatiyan records marked as (exhibit-D-(8) collectively). There is also no record of any title deed in favour of Bishnu Prasad Sharma, the original seller. The only document which are on record are the khasra/khatiyan records marked as (exhibit-D-(8) collectively). The khatiyan copy of 1950-52 land record reflecting plot no.170/171 in the name of Hari Krishna Sharma, son of Bishnu Prasad Sharma of an area of 1.10 acres is also exhibited as (exhibit-D-(8) collectively). It is not denied by the respondent that Hari Krishna Sharma is the son of Bishnu Prasad Sharma and that plot no. 170/171 in the 1950-52 record was later the suit land consisting of plot no.311/312/313. 20. Resultantly, this court deems it fit and proper to invoke the provisions of Order XLI Rule 25 of the CPC and frame the following issues for trial:- (i) Whether the suit land was originally numbered as plot no. 170/171 as per the cadastral survey of 1950-52 and measured only 1.10 acres? (onus on the defendant nos. 1 and 2) (ii) Whether the same plot no. 170/171 as per the Cadastral Survey of 1950-52 was renumbered as plot no. 311/312/313 as per the Cadastral Survey of the year 1979-80 and recorded in the name of Bishnu Prasad Sharma, father of Hari Krishna Sharma, reflecting a total area of 4.33 acres with excess area of 3.23 acres of forest land included therein? (Onus on the defendant nos. 1 and 2) (iii) Whether the subsequent transfers of the suit land initially from Bishnu Prasad Sharma to the extent of the excess 3.23 acres, as claimed, could all be rendered void? (onus on the defendant nos. 1 and 2); 21. The learned Trial Court shall examine the aforesaid issues in terms of Order XLI Rule 25 CPC, conduct a trial to ascertain the issues, take additional evidence, if required, and return the evidence to this court together with its findings thereon and the reasons therefor within a period of six months from the date of the first appearance of the parties as directed below. The parties shall present themselves before the Court of the learned District Judge, South Sikkim at Namchi on 13.05.2022 as suggested by the learned counsel for the parties. 22. As this appeal is not finally decided, the observations made herein are solely for the purpose of the order passed. 23. The parties shall present themselves before the Court of the learned District Judge, South Sikkim at Namchi on 13.05.2022 as suggested by the learned counsel for the parties. 22. As this appeal is not finally decided, the observations made herein are solely for the purpose of the order passed. 23. Copy of this order shall be transmitted to the Court of the learned District Judge, South Sikkim at Namchi, for compliance.