(1.) With the consent of the learned counsels for the parties, the appeal is finally decided at the admission stage.
(2.) The present appeal filed under Order XLIII Rule 1 of CPC arises out of the judgment & order dated 13.01.2011 passed by the Additional District Judge No.2, Bundi (hereinafter referred to as "the appellate court") in Civil Regular Appeal No.27/2010, whereby the appellate court has set-aside the judgment & decree dated 21.07.2010 passed by the Civil Judge (J.D.) Lakheri, District Bundi (hereinafter referred to as "the trial court") in Civil Suit No.4/2002, and has remanded the matter to the trial court for deciding the suit afresh after impleading the third party Shri Peeru Lal as the party defendant in the suit.
(3.) The short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the appellant-plaintiff had filed the suit seeking specific performance of the agreement dated 06.07.1994 executed by the original-defendant Shri Babu Lal. The original-defendant Shri Babu Lal had resisted the suit by filing the written statement. The said defendant Babu Lal expired during the pendency of the suit and his legal heirs were brought on record. The trial court after framing the issues from pleadings of the parties and after considering the evidence on record, decreed the suit of the appellant-plaintiff vide the judgment & decree dated 21.07.2010. Being aggrieved by the said decree, the respondents-defendants had filed the appeal before the appellate court. The appellate court without raising points of determination or without recording any findings on the issues framed by the trial court, held that the Shri Peeru Lal, brother of the original-defendant was the joint owner of the land in question, and therefore, he was the necessary party in the suit. The appellate court, therefore, set-aside the judgment & decree passed by the trial court and remanded the case to the trial court for deciding afresh after impleading the said Peeru Lal as the party defendant in the suit.