- (1.) S. U. Khan, J. In this case, judgment was reserved on 18. 4. 2008 by following order: "list revised. No one appears on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant and learned Counsel for the respon dent Nos. 3 and 4. Judgment reserved. "
(2.) THIS is Plaintiffs appeal. The suit was filed for permanent prohibitory injunc tion seeking to restrain the defendants from interfering in the possession of the Plaintiff over the land in dispute. 2-A. Defendants respondents are as follows: 1. Town Area Committee, Baragaon 2. Bakshi town Area Committee Sudha Sagar Smt. Janki. Bai 3. The suit (O. S. No. 207 of 1984) was dismissed on 28. 3. 1989 by IVth Additional Munsif, Jhansi. However the learned trial Court recorded the finding of ownership and possession in favour of the Plaintiff. (The contention of Town Area was that the land in dispute was part of road/patri ). The suit was dismissed only on the ground that Plaintiff could not construct boundary wall upon the land in dispute without permission of Town Area Committee. Plaintiff had contended that he had constructed boundary wall and had prayed that Town Area Committee be restrained from demolishing the said boundary wall. 4. Against the judgment dated 28. 3. 1989 passed by the trial Court, Plaintiff a filed Civil Appeal No. 86 of 1989, Vishwa Nath v. Town Area Committees and others. District Judge, Jhansi through judgment and order dated 13. 12. 1990 al lowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the trial Court after setting aside its judgment. The trial Court was directed to decide the suit de novo in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in the body of the judgment of the appellate Court.
(3.) THE learned District Judge remanded the matter only on the ground that " property in dispute was not identifiable. Along with the plaint, map of the property in dispute had been annexed, which was only a rough sketch map giving no dimensions, only boundaries were mentioned. The argument of learned Counsel for the appellant is that property was quite identifiable, hence appellate Court should not have remanded the matter.;