An appellate court must ensure a case is decided on merit and not remanded unnecessarily, especially when substantial evidence has been presented by both parties regarding property title and possession.

JUDGMENT

ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI J.

By way of the present cross-appeals, the contesting parties–Satya Narain (through his legal representatives) and the Delhi Development Authority („ DDA ‟) – have challenged/sought modification of judgment dated 24.12.2020 passed by the Additional District Judge-07, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in RCA No.03/2019, by which the learned first appellate court was pleased to remand the matter for consideration by the learned trial court. The rival parties have asserted their title and possession over the suit land; and have sought protection against dispossession from the suit land at the hands of the opposing party.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT– SATYA NARAIN IN RSA 42/2021

2. On behalf of the appellant – Satya Narain, it is submitted that the suit for permanent and mandatory injunction was instituted before this court, being Suit No.1332/1991, in which an interim order of injunction was granted and a Local Commissioner was appointed, who recorded in his report that the appellant was in possession of the property, being land ad-measuring about 1 bigha 18 biswa situate in Khasra No.67 of Patti Hamid Sarai, Mauza Hauz Rani, Begum Pur, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi („suit land‟); whereafter a status-quo order was passed in relation to the suit land on 30.04.1991.

3. It is urged that upon transfer of the suit to the Tis Hazari Courts in view of the enhancement of pecuniary jurisdiction of this court, the suit was renumbered as CS No.66/2014; and after a full-dressed trial, where both parties led evidence and were heard on the issues framed, the learned trial has purported to „decree‟ the suit on 11.01.2019, while also allowing a contempt petition filed under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC, holding the DDA guilty of demolishing the existing structure on the suit land despite an injunction order.

4. It is contended that by judgment dated 24.12.2020 passed in RCA No.03/2019, the learned first appellate court has gravely erred in setting- aside the well‑reasoned judgment and decree dated 11.01.2019 passed by the learned trial court; and has incorrectly remanded the matter to the learned trial court for fresh adjudication, thereby unsettling factual findings after a trial spanning almost 30 years.

5. The appellant submits, that remand of the case amounts to permitting the respondent‑ DDA to fill-up “gaping holes” in its case at the first appellate stage, which is contrary to settled principles governing the scope of a first appeal and of remand under the CPC.

6. The appellant emphasises that the suit land is „non‑evacuee‟ property, the title whereof vested in the predecessor‑in‑interest of the appellant; and the appellant acquired title to the suit land through a registered sale deed dated 27/28.08.1958, whereafter the appellant has remained in continuous and unfettered possession of the suit land for about 40 years. To support this submission, the appellant has placed reliance on the revenue records, being the jamabandi (Annexure A‑34 to the Second Appeal paper-book) and other documents, to assert that the suit land was never under acquisition; and the DDA had itself categorically declared that the land in question was not acquired nor transferred to it under the land acquisition notification of 1982, with Annexure-C to that notification specifically clarifying that the suit land was not transferred to the .

7. It is further submitted, that in the teeth of the injunction/status-quo orders dated 26.04.1991 and 30.04.1991 passed by this court in Suit