As per case facts, the appellant sought 'khatedari' rights over land, claiming succession from his father, whose name was recorded in revenue records. He also sought recovery of land allegedly ... encroached upon by defendants who purportedly fabricated a sale deed. An ex-parte decree was issued in 1975, but an appeal by the defendant in 2006 was rejected due to significant delay. The Board of Revenue remanded the matter, which was affirmed by the High Court, citing the defendant's lack of proper opportunity to present evidence and non-service of summons in the original trial. The appellant argued that the defendant had appeared through counsel and even led evidence, and the delay in challenging the decree was inexcusable. The question arose whether the Board of Revenue and High Court were justified in remanding the matter after decades, despite the defendant's alleged participation and failure to produce a key document in the original trial. Finally, the Supreme Court deemed the remand order illegal due to the excessive delay and the defendant's earlier engagement in the trial, including adducing evidence and failing to produce the pivotal sale deed, and thus restored the original decree in favor of the appellant's khatedari rights.