MADHU GANERIWALA Vs. SHIV KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned 1st Appellate Court (Addl. District Judge, Sirsa) dated 31.7,1997. Notice of motion in this appeal was issued by Shri N.C. Khichi, J. vide order dated 7.8.1997 returnable on 6.10.1997. Hearing of the appeal was adjourned on the request of the learned Counsel for the parties. Mr. Jaswant Jain, Advocate sought leave of the Court to file an application under Order 1, Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure in the regular second appeal. According to his contention the applicant was necessary party to the appeal and any decision in appeal would adversely affect his interest. Leave prayed for was granted and the application for irnpleadinent of this applicant was ordered to be registered and listed for arguments. Arguments were heard on this application and the judgment was reserved, while the appeal was directed to be listed for 20.4.1998 for hearing.

(2.) In view of the above circumstances, it has become necessary to decide this application prior to the decision in the appeal. In order to appropriately determine the controversy in issue in the present application, it would be necessary to refer to the facts giving rise to the regular second appeal.

(3.) Krishan Kumar and four others had filed a suit against Kailash Parshad Ganeriwala and eight others, for declaration to the effect that as per family settlement between the parties, plaintiff No. 1 to 3 in the suit had become owners in possession in equal shares of the land to the extent of l/3rd share, plaintiff No. 4 in the suit has become owner in possession on 1/3rd share and plaintiff No. 5 had become owner in possession of the land to the extent of l/3rd share of the total land measuring 181 kanals 15 marlas comprised in various khasra numbers detailed in the plaint in District Sirsa and revenue entires showing to the cotrary were liable to be corrected. The defendants in the suit did not contest the suit and admitted the claim of the plaintiffs, as a result of which the learned trial Court passed the following judgment :