JUDGMENT : M.G.UMA, J. The plaintiff in O.S.No.187/2017 on the file of the learned Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Holenarasipura (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court'), is impugning the judgment and decree dated 05.08.2024 passed in RA.Nos.32/2022 and 34/2022 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Holenarasipura (hereinafter referred to as 'the First Appellate Court'), allowing both the appeals with costs, by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court dated 22.07.2021 and remanding the matter back to the Trial Court for fresh disposal permitting the parties to file their pleadings and to lead their additional evidence. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as per their rank and status before the Trial Court. 3. Brief facts of the case are that, the appellants herein filed the suit O.S.No.187/2017 before the Trial Court for declaration of his title over Sy.No.118 (old No.118/3) situated at Singapura village, Kasaba Hobli, Holenarasipura taluk, measuring 16 guntas out of the larger extent of land with the boundaries mentioned therein (hereinafter referred to as 'the schedule property'). 4. It is the contention of the plaintiff that, he is the absolute owner in possession of the schedule property. Defendant No.7 being the brother of plaintiff, took advantage of the wrong entry in the record of right as his name was wrongly mentioned in the revenue records in respect of the schedule property, executed a registered Gift Deed in favour of defendant No.5 on 28.03.2007. Subsequently, the said Gift Deed was cancelled by executing the registered Cancellation Deed dated 04.01.2008 executed by defendant No.5. However, the private defendants by filing the suit O.S.No.199/2012 got an order of permanent injunction behind the back of the plaintiff. Defendant Nos.1 to 5 being the Government officials joined hands with the private defendants. Therefore, the plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of his title, for permanent injunction against the defendants and to declare that the decree in O.S.No.199/2012 on the file of the learned Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Holenarasipura is not binding on him and also to declare that the Gift Deed dated 28.03.2007 executed by defendant No.7 in favour of defendant No.5 and registered on 09.04.2007 is null and void and not binding on the plaintiff. 5. In-spite of service of notice, none of the defendants have appeared before the Trial Court nor contested the matter. 5. In-spite of service of notice, none of the defendants have appeared before the Trial Court nor contested the matter. 6. The plaintiff examined himself as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P29. The Trial Court, after taking into consideration all the materials on record, decreed the suit of the plaintiff declaring that he is the absolute owner in possession of the property and granted permanent injunction restraining defendant Nos.8 to 14 from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment over the schedule property and it declared that the Gift Deed is null and void. 7. The Trial Court held that the decree passed in O.S.No.199/2012 was challenged by preferring RA.No.38/2016 and the said appeal came to be allowed and the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.199/2012 is already set aside as per Ex.P19, the claim of the plaintiff to declare that the decree in O.S.No.199/2012 is not binding on the plaintiff was held to be not survive for consideration. 8. Defendant Nos.1 to 5 have filed RA.No.34/2022 whereas defendant Nos.8 to 12 have filed RA.No.32/2022 before the First Appellate Court and the said appeal came to be allowed vide separate judgment and decree dated 05.08.2024 by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and remanding the matter to the Trial Court for fresh consideration by permitting the parties to file their pleadings and to lead additional evidence. Being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has preferred these appeals. 9. Heard Sri. Vighneshwar S. Shastri, learned senior advocate for Sri. Gururaj R. learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Nagaraj Krupakar Hegde, learned counsel for Sri.Vinayaka S., learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Sri. Gopalkrishna Soodi, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.5 to 10. Perused the materials including the Trial Court records. 10. It is the contention of learned senior advocate for the appellants that the defendants were having sufficient opportunity to contest the matter before the Trial Court. In- spite of that, they have not availed such opportunity. Only after decreeing the suit they have preferred the appeals. Under such circumstances, the First Appellate Court was not justified in remanding the matter to the Trial Court. 11. I find considerable force in the contentions taken by the learned senior advocate for the appellants. There is absolutely no justification for the defendants for not contesting the suit. Only after decreeing the suit they have preferred the appeals. Under such circumstances, the First Appellate Court was not justified in remanding the matter to the Trial Court. 11. I find considerable force in the contentions taken by the learned senior advocate for the appellants. There is absolutely no justification for the defendants for not contesting the suit. The suit was filed in the year 2017 and the same came to be decreed on 22.07.2021 and therefore, 4 years was available with the defendants to contest the same after fling the suit. But there are absolutely no reasons assigned to justify the defendants for not contesting the suit, even till today they have not came up with any specific defence. 12. It is to be noticed that even though the plaintiff has sought for a declaration that the Gift Deed dated 28.03.2007 executed by defendant No.7 in favour of defendant No.5 is null and void and not binding on the plaintiff, admittedly the said Gift Deed is cancelled by executing a registered Cancellation Deed dated 04.01.2008. Even though the plaintiff has sought for declaration that the decree passed in O.S.No.199/2012 on the file of the learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Holenaraispura, it was not binding on him, it is stated that in an appeal that the said decree was also set aside. In view of these developments, the suit of the plaintiff for declaration of his title and for permanent injunction only could be maintainable. 11. The defendants have to file their written statement and to cross-examine the plaintiff by putting-forth their specific defence as till date, the defendants have not come up with any defence, but the same cannot be a ground to set aside the judgment passed by the First Appellate Court affording an opportunity to the defendants to contest the matter, by remanding the matter to the Trial Court for fresh consideration. I deem it appropriate to enhance the cost i.e. imposed by the First Appellate Court since the appellant/plaintiff was made to suffer for the fault committed by the defendants. Hence, the defendants are liable to pay compensatory cost. In the meantime, the Trial Court may be directed to expedite the trial and to dispose off the same in a time-bound manner. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The appeals are allowed in part. Hence, the defendants are liable to pay compensatory cost. In the meantime, the Trial Court may be directed to expedite the trial and to dispose off the same in a time-bound manner. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The appeals are allowed in part. (ii) The judgment and decree dated 05.08.2024 passed by the First Appellate Court in R.A.Nos.32/2022 and 34/2022 is hereby confirmed. However, the cost imposed by the Trial Court at Rs.5,000/- is modified as under. (iii) Defendant Nos.1 to 5 are directed to pay cost of Rs.10,000/-, while defendant Nos.8 to 12 are directed to pay cost of Rs.10,000/- to the plaintiff. (iv) The Trial Court shall ensure the payment of costs before taking up the matter for fresh consideration. (v) Both the parties are directed to appear before the Trial Court on 05.01.2026 , without waiting for further notice. Since the suit is of the year 2017, the Trial Court is required to dispose off the same in a time-bound manner, atleast within six months from the date of receipt of the Trial Court records. It is needless to say that both the parties are duty bound to assist the Court in early disposal of the matter, without seeking adjournments unnecessarily. Registry is directed to send back the Trial Court records along with copy of this judgment.