6. Having considered the rival contentions put forth by either side and on perusal of the records, what is an admitted position is that though there is an order in favour of the Complainant on 30.10.1996 under the provisions of Section 170-B of the Code, but the said order being an appealable order and the Appellant having the right to appeal against the said order and had availed the right of appeal by filing of an appeal before the Court of the Commissioner, Bilaspur where the proceedings were pending and which fact was brought to the notice of the Court below vide Exhibit D-2. The fact that the appeal was pending before the Court of the Commissioner at the time of the proceedings initiated by the Trial Court it cannot be said that the order of the Sub Divisional Officer under Section 170-B of the Code had conclusively been established as there was a possibility of the appellate body reversing the finding of the Sub Divisional Officer. Thus, in the opinion of this Court, the Court below should have waited for the outcome of the appeal preferred by the Appellant against the order passed under Section 170-B of the Code before giving a finding of the Appellant to be wrongfully occupying the land belonging to the Complainant. Admittedly, from the pleadings it is evidently clear that the land originally belonged to one Ramlal and from Ramlal it got transferred to Mohardas and from Mohardas it came into the hands of the Appellant by
