The Court's decision emphasized the limited scope of interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and the need for a thorough consideration of the merits of the case by the appellate authority.

JUDGMENT

SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH, J. - This petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, has been preferred against the order dtd. 20/6/2022, passed by the Court of 10th District Judge, Gwalior in Miscellaneous Civil Appeals bearing MCA Nos. 64/2022, 46/2022, 47/2022 and 48/2022, whereby, the order dtd. 8/3/2022, passed by the Court of 10th Civil Judge, Senior Division, Gwalior in Civil Suit bearing No. RCS-A/339/2021, was set aside and the case was remanded back to the Trial Court for re-consideration on the applications, filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC on behalf of the petitioners as well as the respondents.

2. Brief facts giving rise to this petition are that the petitioners filed a Civil Suit bearing RCS No. A/339/2021, before the Court of 10th Civil Judge, Senior Division, Gwalior for declaration of title and injunction, alongwith an application, under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C. for grant of temporary injunction, over a piece of land admeasuring 80ft x 150ft, i.e. 12000 sqft, on the eastern side of which, there is Agra Bombay Road, on the western side, there is a land belonging to Smt. Anjali Jain, on the northern side, there is a land belonging to defendants no.3 and 4 and on the southern side, there is a land belonging to Smt. Anjali Jain and Saroj Devi, at Agra Bombay Road, Tehsil and District Gwalior. Petitioners' pleaded therein that the aforesaid disputed land is part of the land bearing survey no. 855(0.376 hect) and 855/1071 (0.115 hect.), situated at Patwari Halka No. 54, ward No. 64, village Shankarpur, Agra Bombay Road, Tehsil and District Gwalior.

3. Petitioners pleaded that initially the lands bearing survey nos. 853 (0.021 hect.), 854 (0.125 hect.), 855 (0.376 hect.), 856-Min (0.219 hect.) and 855/1071(0.115 hect.), all situated at Patwari Halka No. 54, ward No. 64, village Shankarpur, Agra Bombay Road, Tehsil and District Gwalior, were purchased by the respondent no.1, Yaadram and respondent no.2, Rampal from Chandrasen Rao through his power of attorney holder Shivaji Rao vide registered sale deed dtd. 15/1/1980. Thereafter, respondent nos. 1 and 2, vide lease deed dtd. 1/6/1980, gave all the above lands to Ashok Kumar, Ramkumar, Suresh Kumar, Subhashchandra, Ramsingh and Uma Devi on lease for three years. In the year 1990-91, Ashok Kumar and others, claiming themselves as 'Mourushi Kashtakaar' of the above lands, filed an application under Ss. 169 and 190 read with Sec. 110 of MP Land Revenue Code, before the Court of Tahsildar, Gwalior for mutating the same in their name, wherein respondent nos. 1 and 2 admitted the claim of Ashok Kumar and others through their power of attorney holder, on the basis of which, learned Court of Tehsildar Gwalior, vide order dtd. 12/03/1991, mutated all the above lands in the name of Ashok Kumar and others, who whereafter, sold the same to Aditya Grih Nirman Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, Gwalior, vide sale deed dtd. 7/5/1991.

3.1. Petitioners further pleaded that Aditya Grih Nirman Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, Gwalior, vide registered sale deed dtd. 14/11/1991, sold the disputed 0.112 hectare land, which is part of the land bearing survey no. 855 (0.376 hect.) and 855/1071 (0.115 hect.) to Saroj Devi and Sudharani, who got the disputed land mutated in their name. They constructed boundary wall surrounding the above land and after diversion, got constructed walls of two rooms on the western side of the land. Petitioners purchased the above 12000 sqft disputed land from Rajendra Agrawal, Deepak Agrawal, Ankur Agrawal, Mayur Agrawal (all legal heirs of late Saroj Devi) and Sudharani vide two registered sale deeds dtd. 6/6/2020 and 20/3/2020, and since then they are in possession of the same. The boundary wall, constructed on the northern side of the disputed land, in between petitioners' land and the land belonging to respondent nos. 3 and 4, was damaged due to rains and the construction materials of which were taken away by the respondents, who thereafter, st