MAUJI RAM Vs. RAM KALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON a verbal plea, notice of motion was issued only qua the respondent No. 7-Sandeep Bhatia. Facts beyond the pale of controversy and, even otherwise apparent from the record, are as under :-

(2.) PETITIONERS Mauji Ram and Sarupa @ Ram Sarup also filed another civil suit (No. 253 of 1998) to obtain the invalidation of the two sale deeds vide which Churia had sold the land under reference to Ramdia and others. The plaintiffs-petitioners filed that suit for a declaration (with consequential relief of permanent injunction) on the plea that they are governed by Hindu Law and that Churia could not have sold that property as it was coparcenary/joint Hindu family property in his hands qua the plaintiffs- petitioners. They also applied for a declaration that the decree obtained by Mst. Birmati in Civil suit No. 713 of 1987 was void and non est. In both the suits aforementioned, respondent Sandeep Bhatia was arrayed as party. He contested both the suits as Churia had sold that property to him in the meantime. Ram Kali and Birmati defendants in both the civil suits (No. 247 of 1998 and 253 of 1998) and also Sandeep Bhatia was also proceeded ex parte in both the aforesaid suits. Ram Kali and Birmati filed appeals against judgments and decree in both the civil suits. Sandeep Bhatia did not file any appeal against the judgments and decree in both the civil suits (No. 247 of 1998 and 253 of 1998). However, he filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. for setting aside of the judgment and decree passed in Cavil Suit No. 247 of 1998.

(3.) BIRMATI and Ram Kali filed revision petitions (No. 2435 of 2007 and 2810 of 2007) against the order dated 31.7.2006 vide which the Ist Appellate Court had declined to condone the delay and dismissed their appeals as time barred. Sandeep Bhatia also filed a revision petition (No. 446 of 2007). All the three revision petitions were disposed by a Coordinate Bench (Vinod K. Sharma, J.) vide order dated 21.12.2007. The Bench observed that the disposal thereof by a common judgment was in order as common questions of law and fact were involved. The revision petitions were allowed and the appeals were remanded to the learned Ist Appellate court for a decision on merits of the case. It is thereafter that Sandeep Bhatia respondent filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. (in both the appeals) for being transposition as an appellant. The application was allowed by the learned First Appellate Court, vide impugned order dated 24.8.2008. I have heard Mr. C.B. Goel, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, learned counsel for the respondent-Sandeep Bhatia and have carefully gone through the record.