JASWANT SINGH Vs. PREM LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) During the pendency of the instant appeal, before this Court, the learned Counsel for, the, proforma respondent, has moved, an application, cast under the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, seeking there through the leave of this Court, to, implead, hence, the alienee lis pendens in the array, of, co-defendants/respondents, in, Civil Suit No. 29 of 2003, and in the instant RSA, (i) given the afore, during the pendency of Civil Suit No. 29 of 2003, through, a registered Deed of Conveyance executed inter-se him, and, the predecessors, of, the contesting defendants, hence acquiring right, title or interest, in a part of the suit property. Since, the impleadment of the afore, alienee lis pendens, even though, was recourseable, before, the learned trial Judge concerned, (ii) however, the afore omission, would not constrain this Court, to not to allow, the, instant application, as, the, afore alienee lis pendens, is both a proper and necessary party to the lis, (ii) and, when also for ensuring that ,the, apposite alienee lis pendens, is not faced, with the consequence, of, any decree being pronounced, in his absence, against the co-defendant, whereupon his right, title or interest, in, the suit property, will become severally prejudiced, (iii) also only upon his impleadment, he would be able to rear the apposite statutory espousal qua his acquisition, being validated, rather through, the, statutory principle, of, ostensible ownership. Hence, the application, is, allowed, and applicant is ordered to be impleaded, as, a co-respondent, in, the array, of, respondents, in the memo, of, parties in the instant appeal. However, the impleadment, in the array, of, co-respondents in the memo, of, parties in the instant appeal, of, the alienee lis pendens, would not also constrain, this Court to amend the memo of parties, in, the civil suit, (iv) given, qua, the, afore empowerment being solitarily vested in the learned Sub Judge concerned. Memo of parties, in, the instant appeal is directed to be corrected, by, the Registry of this Court.

(2.) Since, for ensuring the completest adjudication of the lis, inter-se, the, alienee lis pendens, and, also, amongst, the, other contesting litigants, and, when, the afore alienee lis pendens, is both a necessary and proper party to the lis, (a) besides, for, enabling the requisite recoursings, for, his impleadment, in, the array of, the, contestants, being made, before the learned Trial Judge, (b) given the latter being solitarily competent to make an order thereupon (c) in aftermath, this Court is constrained, to, for facilitating the afore purposes, hence remand the lis, to, the learned Trial Judge concerned. However, since after the occurrence, of impleadment of the alienee lis pendens, the latter would be, empowered to plead qua his acquisition of right, title or interest in the suit property, becoming validated, through, the statutory principle, of, ostensible ownership, (d) and when striking of consequent therewith issue, is, imperative and also, evidence is required to be adduced, thereon, by the litigants concerned, (e) hence, for completing the afore exercise, this Court deems it fit to quash the impugned judgment. Since, the afore vital defect is directly and insegregatebly interconnected with the other issues, whereupon, findings are already returned, and, also, when the latter struck afore issue(s), would require findings being returned, alongwith fresh findings, being returned, upon connected therewith issues, as already framed or struck by the learned Trial Judge, hence, this Court deems it fit to remand, the, entire lis to the learned Trial Judge, and, the learned Trial Judge, is, directed to, hence, complete an adjudication, but, after, making compliance viz-a-viz, the afore observations, upon, Civil Suit No. 29 of 2003, before nine months, hereinafter. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Trial Judge, on, 16.10.2019.

(3.) The appeal is disposed of alongwith pending application(s) if any.