The main legal point established in the judgment is that remand should only be directed in specific contingencies as specified in the Civil Procedure Code, and lower Appellate Courts should observe these contingencies when passing judgments and orders directing remand.

Being aggrieved by the judgment of remand dated 21-12-2010 passed by the First Additional District Judge, Sagar in Civil Appeal No. 8-A/2010, this appeal under Order 43, Rule l(u) of the Code of Civil Procedure has been preferred by the defendants.

2. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff was having Plot No. 7, Block No. 57 in Civil Lines, Sagar. In the northern side thereof there is a culvert and in southern side 10 feet road is there. It is also not in dispute that defendants are lease holder of 750 sq. ft. of land on which his old house is situated. It is also not in dispute that defendants want to raise construction on the said plot after seeking permission from the Municipal Corporation. It is said in plaint that Plot No. 7, Block No. 57 as indicated in the map ad-measuring 37 feet from northern to southern side, in eastern side 67 feet and in western side 59 feet, total area is 2331 sq. ft. situated in Civil Lines, Sagar, The said plot was purchased by the plaintiff from Itwarilal son of Natthulal Mehtar vide registered sale deed dated 10-2-1992 and their name is recorded in the revenue papers and Corporation. It is said that in the northern side of the said plot about 6 feet broad culvert is there, in southern side 10 foot road, in eastern side plot of Pancham is there and in western side house of Parmanand is situated after 9 feet of the road. Adjacent to the plot in eastern side 5 feet road towards northern side which is adjacent to Sagar-Jabalpur Main Road and in western side 10 feet wide road attached to Sagar-Jabalpur road which is a way of use. As per the map attached to the plaint indicated by green hedges right to enjoyment is there. If the defendants are allowed to raise construction, the right of enjoyment will come to an end. It is further said that after seeking permission construction has been raised on about 200 sq. ft. of land for which mandatory injunction may be issued and on the land of 6 feet the defendants be restrained to not to interfere in right to use of the land of plaintiff.

3. Defendants by filing written statement have denied the plaint allegations and it is said that the plaintiff has not purchased the land from Itwarilal. In fact the original lease holder of the land was Rana Kunjar, however, Itwarilal has sold more than the land acquired by him from Rana Kunjar. In such circumstances the plaintiff is not the real owner of the land as purchased vide registered sale deed from Itwarilal, It is admitted that in northern side and southern side 10 feet way is there. In eastern side plot of Panchamlal has been denied. The way of 5 feet and 10 feet towards northern side and southern side joining Sagar-Jabalpur road has also been denied. It is stated that the plaintiff has encroached upon 50 feet of land in northern and southern sides while executing sale deed extra to the said plot 17 feet land has been encroached upon. It is said that the defendants were in possession of 17 feet of the land since lifetime of their father and whereupon they are having peaceful possession. It is further said that after seeking permission from the Municipal Corporation they are raising construction on plot and the plaintiff is not entitled to seek temporary or mandatory injunction, if any. In additional pleas it is stated that as per documents filed by the plaintiff for purchasing the lands by Itwarilal from Rana Kunjar, in the said document measurement has been shown northern to southern side 50 feet and from eastern to western 37 feet. The boundaries of the sale deed executed in favour of plaintiff by Itwarilal, the said area has been shown towards southern side 57 feet and from western-southern side 59 feet which is more than the leased area granted by original lease holder Rana Kunjar. In view of the aforesaid facts it is urged that the plaintiff is not entitled to claim any injunction.

4. The trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff and on filing an appeal lower Appellate Court referring t