JUDGMENT :

Deepak Gupta, J.

Plaintiff of Civil Suit No. 286 of 2009 titled as "Sajjan Singh v. Bhajan Singh and others" is before this Court. His suit for joint possession was decreed by the trial court vide judgment dated 14.05.2014 but by way of the order dated 01.11.2016 passed in Civil Appeal N: 29 of 2014, learned Addl. District Judge, Sangrur, has set aside the judgment dated 14.05.2014 of the trial Court. Certain additional issues have been framed by the appellate court and the case has been remanded to the trial Court to give findings on the additional issues as framed by the Appellate Court and then decided the suit afresh. It is this order of appellate court, which in under challenge before this court.

2. In order to appreciated the controversy, it is necessary to mention the relevant facts of the case in brief.

3. In order to avoid confusion, parties shall be referred as per their status before the trial Court.

4. A suit for recovery filed by on Ram Kishan against Sukhjinder Singh was decreed on 30.11.1974. In order to realize the decretal amount, said Ram Kishan filed execution on 04.07.1975, which was dismissed as withdrawn on 17.03.1976. He then filed fresh execution on 21.04.1976. During the execution proceedings, auction of the property owned by judgment debtor -Sukhjinder Singh, as comprised in khasra No.1901/434/2 situated in village Saron (which is the subject matter of the present suit) was conducted and Sale Certificate dated 03.09.1977 was issued in favour of the decree holder - Ram Kishan. The judgment debtor - Sukhjinder Singh challenged the said sale by filing a Civil Suit No.434 of 1977, but the said suit was dismissed on 22.10.1979.

4.1 However, prior to the dismissal of the aforesaid suit and rather, even prior to filing of the suit, Sukhjinder Singh had already suffered a collusive decree dated 18.08.1975 in favour of his sister Smt. Rajinder Kaur, not only in respect of the suit land, but in respect of some other land in order to avoid the auction. On the basis of that decree dated 18.08.1975 in her favour, Rajinder Kaur filed objections under Order 21 Rule 90 CPC in the execution filed by Ram Kishan, which were initially accepted by Sub Judge, Dhuri on 04.09.1980, but the appeal filed by decree holder - Ram Kishan was allowed on 04.01.1982 by the District Judge, Sangrur and the Sale Certificate in favour of decree holder - Ram Kishan was kept intact. The said order of District Judge, Sangrur was challenged by Smt. Rajinder Kaur by filing Civil Revision No.963 of 1982 before this High Court. During pendency of that revision, Ram Kishan expired on 23.12.1988 and Sajjan Singh, plaintiff of the present suit (appellant herein) was brought on record as his legal representative on the basis of a Will dated 18.01.1989.

4.2 During pendency of the civil revision pending before this High Court, Smt. Rajinder Kaur sold the suit property in favour of defendants of the present suit - Bhajan Singh and others (respondents herein) vide sale deed dated 15.05.1996 and based thereon, mutation No.2956 was sanctioned. Later on, Civil Revision No.963 of 1982 as filed by Rajinder Kaur was dismissed in default on 25.02.2004. A Civil Mise, application No.2693 of 2008 moved by Rajinder Kaur so as to consider her revision on merits, was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 13.02.2009.

4.3 After the dismissal of the civil revision, Sajjan Singh as legal representative of Ram Kishan moved application before the Revenue Authorities to enter mutation regarding property in dispute in his favour. However, the said mutation was rejected by the Assistant Collector - II Grade, Sangrur on the ground that possession had not been delivered to him after issuance of the sale certificate. Appeal filed by Sajjan Singh was dismissed by the Assistant Collector -I Grade, Sangrur. He filed revision before the Divisional Commissioner, but the same was also dismissed on 28.05.2008.

4.4 In this back drop, Sajjan Singh filed the present civil suit seeki