BABUBHAI LAXMANBHAI Vs. PATEL NARANBHAI THAKERSIBHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners herein have questioned the order passed by the learned 4th Joint Civil Judge(S.D.) at Bhavnagar below Applications Exs. 108 and 112 alongwith other 'applications in Special Civil Suit No. 64 of 1983, by invoking aids of provisions of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('Code' for short).

(2.) With a view to appreciate the merits of the revision application, a few material facts may be stated at this stage. Land bearing Survey No. 141 of village Nesvad of Mahuva taluka of Bhavnagar district which originally belonged to the owner one Mr. Babuthai Chhaganbhai came to be converted into non-agricultural purpose by virtue of permission obtained on 6-3-1975 through respondent No. 1. Thereafter, the land came to be divided in various plots and agreements of sale in respect of the plots were entered into.These plots were sold to various purchasers and accordingly, their names also were mutated in the revenue record. The petitioners have inter alia contended that they are in possession and enjoyment of the plots purchased by them out of S.No. 141.

(3.) The petitioners who are the original applicants have also contended that respondents Nos. 8 and 9 in collusion with father of respondent No. 9 filed Special Civil Suit No. 7 of 1978 in the court of the learned Civil Judge (S.D.) at Bhavnagar on or about 4-1-1978 against them and also against Shriji Co-operative Housing Society ('the society' for short). That suit was filed by the heirs of original owner for a declaration that the disputed land S.No. 141 is their ancestral property and respondent No. 8, mother of original owner, respondent No. 9 Oghad, uncle of respondents Nos. 2 to 7 who are heirs of owner Babubhai Chhaganbhai. In Special Civil Suit No. 7 of 1978, the plaintiffs who are respondents Nos. 2 to 7 got a decree in their favour whereby the argeements in respect of the plots were held to be not binding as the property bearing S.No. 141 is ancestral property. The decree came to be passed in favour of the plaintiffs of that suit on 7-4-1982. Therefore, some of the purchasers challenged the legality and validity of the decree obtained in Special Civil Suit No. 7 of 1978 by respondents Nos. 2 to 7 against respondents Nos. 8 and 9 and the so-called society. During the course of pendency of the suit, the petitioners, submitted two applications, Exs. 108 and 112 in Special Civil Suit No. 64 of 1983 on 1-10-1992 and 19-10-1992 under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code. The petitioners inter alia contended that they are purchasers of same plots of S.No. 141 and they are interested persons. They also contended that original plaintiffs of Suit No. 64 of 1983 applied for withdrawal of the suit and respondent No. 1 herein also applied for transposition of his name as plaintiff in that suit, before the Trial Court. Respondent No. 1 is the original defendant No. 5. After hearing the parties and examining the facts and circumstances, the Trial Court by a common order rejected applications Exs. 103, 108 and 112 submitted by the petitioners. Request of original defendant No. 5 for transposing him as plaintiff, at Exh. 120 came to be allowed. Thus, by virtue of the impugned common order, three applications Exhs. 103, 108 and 112 came to be rejected on 19-1-1994 by the Trial Court whereas the application for transposition of original defendant No. 5 Exh. 120 in that suit came to be allowed. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the original applicants have now filed this revision challenging the legality and validity of the order by invoking aids of provisions of Section 115 of the Code.