Substantially connected appeals were remanded for joint reconsideration, with substantial questions left open.

The plaintiffs sued for declaration of ownership and permanent injunction concerning property features including a bath shed, well, channel, and boundary structures.

The defendant disputed aspects of the plaintiffs’ description and the existence or location of some features.

A Court Commissioner’s report was marked as Ex.C1, but the Trial Court rejected it and decreed the suit, relying on the plaintiffs’ hand sketch.

The First Appellate Court dismissed the defendant’s appeal without independently re-appreciating the evidence.

The defendant then filed this second appeal.

Counsel informed the High Court that a related appeal, R.A. No. 19/2010, concerning substantially the same subject matter and parties, was pending before the First Appellate Court following a remand in R.S.A. No. 6213/2012.

1. Whether the Trial Court was justified in rejecting the Commissioner’s report, allegedly favourable to the appellant, without disapproving or setting it aside?

2. Whether the Trial Court was justified in holding that title to the suit property was not in dispute, despite the appellant’s alleged challenge to it?

The appeal was brought under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The High Court did not decide the merits of the framed substantial questions of law.

It considered it just and proper to remit the matter so that the First Appellate Court could consider this appeal together with the related appeal, R.A. No. 19/2010, in accordance with law.

The High Court noted that the present dispute was stated to be substantially connected with the subject matter of R.A. No. 19/2010, which was pending before the First Appellate Court after remand.

To facilitate joint consideration and disposal of the connected matters, the Court remitted the present appeal for fresh consideration.

In view of that remand, it expressly declined to answer the substantial questions of law on their merits and left them open for the First Appellate Court.

The matter was remitted to the First Appellate Court for fresh consideration, with a direction to take up R.A. No. 39/2001 along with R.A. No. 19/2010 and dispose of both together, as far as possible, in accordance with law.

The substantial questions of law were left open; the parties were directed to appear as required without awaiting fresh notice, and the records were to be transmitted forthwith.