BARELAL Vs. DEENDAYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard on I.A no.11423/22 , which is an application for leave to file second appeal.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant Barelal submits that despite being necessary party to the civil suit no.1A/13 and civil appeal no.16-A/14, he was not made party to the lis and the respondents 1-6 by impleading the respondent 7/State as party, have got decreed the suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction with regard to agriculture land Khasra no.239/1 area 1.226 Hectare situated in Village Guraiya, Tahsil and District Chhatarpur, from the first appellate Court, whereas civil suit no.1A/13 was dismissed by 3rd Civil Judge Class-II, Chhatarpur.

(3.) By showing the order dtd. 17/7/2012 passed by Commissioner, Sagar Division, Sagar in appeal no.219/A/6/2008-2009 (Deendayal and others vs. Barelal) and another order dtd. 18/9/2007 passed by Tahsildar, Tahsil Chhatarpur and further by showing the judgment and decree dtd. 25/6/2014 passed by Additional Civil Judge to the Court of 1st Civil Judge Class-II, Chhatarpur in civil suit no.25-A/13 (Barelal Luhar vs. Gokul Bajpai and others), learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant-Barelal was necessary party to the civil suit in question and the judgment and decree dtd. 26/11/2014 passed in civil appeal no.16A/14 is not binding on the appellant.