1. The Appellant-State of Madhya Pradesh1-Defendant in the Original Suit filed by Satish Jain (Respondent No. 1), since deceased, represented by his legal heirs, is in appeal assailing the correctness of the judgment and order dated 14.11.2005 passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court allowing Civil Revision No. 201 of 2005, titled "Satish Jain v. Rama and Ors.", whereby the High Court set aside the order of the Trial Court dated 22.12.2004, and further directed the Trial Court to proceed in accordance with law to implement the award of the Arbitrator. It also rejected the objections of the Appellant dated 09.11.2004, and further the order rejecting the report of the Arbitrator was also set aside. The operative part of the impugned order as contained in the paragraph 27 thereof is reproduced hereunder:
2. The relevant facts giving rise to the filing of the present appeal are briefly stated hereunder:
(i). Satish Jain s/o. Dayanand Jain instituted a civil suit impleading one Rama s/o. Parasram as Defendant No. 1 and State of Madhya Pradesh through Collector, Bhopal as Defendant No. 2 praying for a decree of declaration, permanent injunction and mandatory injunction. It was registered as C.S. No. 65A of 1990. The basis of the claim was that the property in dispute being Khasra Nos. 48 & 49 area 3.53 acres situated in Village Halalpur, Tehsil Huzur, District Bhopal was owned by the State of Madhya Pradesh. However, Defendant No. 1 was enjoying continuous and peaceful adverse possession over the suit land for the last 50-60 years and as such has perfected his rights by adverse possession and had become the owner of the land.
(ii). It was further alleged that Defendant No. 1 has transferred all his rights, title, and interest over the suit land in favour of the Plaintiff and had also handed over possession of the suit land on 05.09.1988.
(iii). Thereafter the Plaintiff had erected wired fencing on 06.09.1988, and had been enjoying possession of the suit land.
(iv). It is further alleged in the plaint that Defendant No. 1 was likely to transfer the said land again in favour of the 3rd party and he also came to know that some officers and employees of the State (Defendant No. 2) had visited the suit land and tried to remove the fencing. In such circumstances, the Plaintiff was compelled to institute the suit for declaration, permanent injunction and mandatory injunction.
(v). According to the Plaintiff, the cause of action arose on 07.10.1988, and again on 11.10.1988 when the officers/employees of the State tried to remove the fencing.
(vi). The Trial Court decreed the suit ex-parte vide judgment and order dated 22.06.1990.
(vii). The State preferred an appeal Under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 19082 which was dismissed on the ground of delay of 8 days only by the IVth Ad........