- (1.) The plaintiffs who succeeded before the trial Court, lower appellate Court and lost their suit before the High Court filed the above appeal.
(2.) Brief facts required for the disposal of this appeal are as follows: According to the plaintiffs-appellants, they were in possession of the suit land for more than 40 years. The suit was filed in 1989 for declaration of title on the ground of adverse possession and for injunction. The trial Court decreed the suit and the appeal filed by the defendants was dismissed by the first appellate Court. When the second appeal was filed before the High Court, the High Court, after finding that there is no evidence, remanded the matter to the trial Court for taking further evidence. The said order of the High Court was challenged before this Court by way of C.A. No. 1348 of 1999. By judgment dated 8.3.1999, this Court, after recording a finding that the High Court was in error and not justified in sending the matter back to cure any lacuna in the evidence, set aside the order, restored Second Appeal No. 304 of 1992 to the file of the High Court and directed it to dispose of the same afresh on the available evidence.
(3.) Pursuant to the said direction, the High Court formulated two substantial questions of law which are as under: "1. Whether the suit was barred in view of the provisions of Section 163(3) of the H.P. Land Revenue Act, 1953 2. Whether the suit of the plaintiff, in the facts of the case that on 2nd April, 1970, an order of ejectment was passed ordering the ejectment of the plaintiff under Section 163 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act, 1954, can be said to be within the period of limitation - While considering the first question, the High Court concluded that inasmuch as an order of ejectment of the plaintiffs from the land in dispute under Section 163 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act, 1953 was passed on 2.4.1970 by the Settlement Officer, the suit having been filed about 19 years after such order is barred by limitation. After arriving at such conclusion on question No.1, the High Court, without going into the second question or adverting to the case of the plaintiffs i.e., adverse possession, by order dated 04.01.2000, allowed the second appeal, set aside the judgments and decrees passed by the trial Court as well as by the lower appellate Court and dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs as being time barred. Challenging the said order, the plaintiffs have filed the present appeal.;