SAO No.11 of 2016 and one anr. 120 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 1. Dalip Kaur and others Vs Beant Singh and others 2. Dalip Kaur and others Vs Surinder Kaur CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present: Mr. for the Mr. for the respondent HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral) Vide this common order, Appeals against Order common order brevity, facts are being taken from 2. By way of present appeal(s), challenge has been laid to the order dated 05.01.2016 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, SAO No.11 of 2016 and one anr. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 07.07.2026 SAO No. 11 of 2016 Dalip Kaur and others Vs Beant Singh and others Date of Decision: 07.07.2026 SAO No. 12 of 2016 (O&M) Dalip Kaur and others Vs r and others HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Mr. D.S. Brar, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. K.B. Raheja, Advocate for the respondents. **** HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral) Vide this common order, the abovementioned two Second Appeals against Order, are being decided as order involving common facts and brevity, facts are being taken from SAO-11- By way of present appeal(s), challenge has been laid to the order dated 05.01.2016 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 07.07.2026 SAO No. 11 of 2016 (O&M) ......Appellants …..Respondents Decision: 07.07.2026 SAO No. 12 of 2016 (O&M) ......Appellants …..Respondents HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA the abovementioned two Second , are being decided as both have arisen out of question of law. For the sake of -2016. By way of present appeal(s), challenge has been laid to the order dated 05.01.2016 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 1 the abovementioned two Second have arisen out of question of law. For the sake of By way of present appeal(s), challenge has been laid to the order dated 05.01.2016 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, SANJAY GUPTA 2026.07.13 12:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document SAO No.11 of 2016 and one anr. Faridkot (hereinafter referred to as whereby the judgment and decree dated 16.11.2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Faridkot ( Court”) decreeing the suit the appellants/ plaintiffs remanded back to the learned trial Court for its fresh adjudication upon framing of the additional issues. 3. Briefly stating, the dispute in the present case(s) pertain estate of deceased Sant Singh ( property”). The appellants/ plaintiffs claiming themselves to be heirs filed a suit for declaration, permanent injunction and joint possession. The claim was opposed by the responde set up by the respondents/ defendants was that earlier a suit for declaration was filed and subsequently withdrawn 02.09.2008 and therefore, the subsequent suit learned trial Court, on the hearing the parties, framed the following issues: SAO No.11 of 2016 and one anr. hereinafter referred to as “the First Appellate Court” whereby the judgment and decree dated 16.11.2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Faridkot (hereinafter referred to as “ decreeing the suit for declaration and joint possession the appellants/ plaintiffs has been was set aside and the matter has been remanded back to the learned trial Court for its fresh adjudication upon framing of the additional issues. Briefly stating, the dispute in the present case(s) pertain ate of deceased Sant Singh (hereinafter referred to as “ . The appellants/ plaintiffs claiming themselves to be heirs filed a suit for declaration, permanent injunction and joint possession. The claim was opposed by the respondents/ defendants. set up by the respondents/ defendants was that earlier a suit for declaration and subsequently withdrawn by the appellants/ plaintiffs on 02.09.2008 and therefore, the subsequent suit ned trial Court, on the hearing the parties, framed the following issues: “1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for decree of declaration, as prayed for? OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for decree of permanent injunction, as prayed for? OPP. 3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for decree of joint possession, as prayed for? OPP. 4. Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable in the present form? OPD. 5. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus the present suit? OPD. “the First Appellate Court” whereby the judgment and decree dated 16.11.2013 passed by the learned hereinafter referred to as “the trial for declaration and joint possession in favour of was set aside and the matter has been remanded back to the learned trial Court for its fresh adjudication upon Briefly stating, the dispute in the present case(s) pertains to the hereinafter referred to as “the suit . The appellants/ plaintiffs claiming themselves to be his legal heirs filed a suit for declaration, permanent injunction and joint possession. nts/ defendants. One of the plea set up by the respondents/ defendants was that earlier a suit for declaration by the appellants/ plaintiffs on 02.09.2008 and therefore, the subsequent suit later barred by law. The ned trial Court, on the hearing the parties, framed the following issues: Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for decree of declaration, as prayed for? OPP. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for decree of permanent injunction, as prayed for? OPP. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for decree of joint possession, as prayed for? OPP. Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable in the present form? OPD. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus-standi to file the present suit? OPD. 2 “the First Appellate Court”), whereby the judgment and decree dated 16.11.2013 passed by the learned trial in favour of was set aside and the matter has been remanded back to the learned trial Court for its fresh adjudication upon to the the suit legal heirs filed a suit for declaration, permanent injunction and joint possession. One of the plea set up by the respondents/ defendants was that earlier a suit for declaration by the appellants/ plaintiffs on The ned trial Court, on the hearing the parties, framed the following issues:- Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for decree of Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for decree of Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for decree of Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is not standi to file SANJAY GUPTA 2026.07.13 12:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document SAO No.11 of 2016 and one anr. 4. Upon appellants/ plaintiffs was decreed vide judgment and 16.11.2013. The relevant portion from the decree learned trial Court is extracted hereunder: SAO No.11 of 2016 and one anr. 6. Whether the defendants are bonafide purchaser of the suit-property for the valuable consideration, if so its effect? OPD. 7. Relief.” Upon consideration, the suit preferred at the instance of appellants/ plaintiffs was decreed vide judgment and 16.11.2013. The relevant portion from the decree learned trial Court is extracted hereunder:- “Suit for the declaration to the effect that plaintiff No.1 is owner of 6/15 share and plaintiffs No.2 to 4 are owners of 3/15 in equal share and defendant No.7 is owner of 1/3 share of the residential house and is possession thereof, situated on the Main Road, Machaki Mal Singh, Teacher Colony, Faridkot, bounded as follows:- East Main Road, West: Residence of Roop Singh, South & North: Gurdass Singh and Harsangeet Singh & others consisting of construction as defined in rough site plain attached with the plaint and for permanent injunction restraining thereby the defendants from interfering in any manner in peaceful possession of the plaintiffs as they are owners and in possession of the said house and further alienating the same in any manner i.e. by transfer, Gift, sale or mortgage and further plaintiffs are the owners of agricultural-land as comprised in the Jamabandi for 2002-2003, consisting Khewat No.100, Khatoni No. 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307 and Khasra No.12/4 (7 (7-1), 7/2 (2-0), 9 (0-4), 13 (4 Khatoni No.301, measuring 35 Kanals 2 Marlas and Khatoni No. 302 Khasra No.89 (1-11), Khatoni No.303, Khasra No. 12/15 (8 0), 16/2/2/2 (1-14), Khatoni No. 304, Khasra No.12/16/1 (3 16/2/1 (1-4), 16/2/2/1 (1-10), Khatoni No. 305/12/17 (8 12), Khatoni No. 306 Khasra No..12/3/2 (4 Kanals 5 Marlas and land comprising in Khatoni No. 307, and Khasra No. 30/11/2 (3-11), 11/1(3 measuring 10 Kanals 13 Marlas situated in the revenue estate of village Jandwala Tehsil and District Ferozepur and also for Whether the defendants are bonafide purchaser of property for the valuable consideration, if , the suit preferred at the instance of appellants/ plaintiffs was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 16.11.2013. The relevant portion from the decree-sheet passed by the “Suit for the declaration to the effect that plaintiff No.1 is owner of 6/15 share and plaintiffs No.2 to 4 are owners of 3/15 in equal share and defendant No.7 is owner of 1/3 share of the residential house and is possession thereof, situated on the Main Road, Machaki Mal Singh, Teacher Colony, Faridkot, bounded as East Main Road, West: Residence of Roop Singh, South rth: Gurdass Singh and Harsangeet Singh & others consisting of construction as defined in rough site plain attached with the plaint and for permanent injunction restraining thereby the defendants from interfering in any manner in peaceful plaintiffs as they are owners and in possession of the said house and further alienating the same in any manner i.e. by transfer, Gift, sale or mortgage and further plaintiffs are the land as comprised in the Jamabandi for , consisting Khewat No.100, Khatoni No. 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307 and Khasra No.12/4 (7-11),7/1 (6-0), 8 4), 13 (4-0), 14/1 (4-18), 14/2 (3-2), and Khatoni No.301, measuring 35 Kanals 2 Marlas and Khatoni No. 11), Khatoni No.303, Khasra No. 12/15 (8 14), Khatoni No. 304, Khasra No.12/16/1 (3-12) 10), Khatoni No. 305/12/17 (8-0), 18(2 12), Khatoni No. 306 Khasra No..12/3/2 (4-0) total measuring 67 land comprising in Khatoni No. 307, and 11), 11/1(3-11), 11/3 (0-18), 20/1(2-13), measuring 10 Kanals 13 Marlas situated in the revenue estate of village Jandwala Tehsil and District Ferozepur and also for 3 Whether the defendants are bonafide purchaser of property for the valuable consideration, if , the suit preferred at the instance of decree dated sheet passed by the “Suit for the declaration to the effect that plaintiff No.1 is owner of 6/15 share and plaintiffs No.2 to 4 are owners of 3/15 in equal share and defendant No.7 is owner of 1/3 share of the residential house and is possession thereof, situated on the Main- Road, Machaki Mal Singh, Teacher Colony, Faridkot, bounded as East Main Road, West: Residence of Roop Singh, South rth: Gurdass Singh and Harsangeet Singh & others consisting of construction as defined in rough site plain attached with the plaint and for permanent injunction restraining thereby the defendants from interfering in any manner in peaceful plaintiffs as they are owners and in possession of the said house and further alienating the same in any manner i.e. by transfer, Gift, sale or mortgage and further plaintiffs are the land as comprised in the Jamabandi for , consisting Khewat No.100, Khatoni No. 301, 302, 0), 8 2), and Khatoni No.301, measuring 35 Kanals 2 Marlas and Khatoni No. 11), Khatoni No.303, Khasra No. 12/15 (8- 12) 0), 18(2- 0) total measuring 67 land comprising in Khatoni No. 307, and 13), measuring 10 Kanals 13 Marlas situated in the revenue estate of village Jandwala Tehsil and District Ferozepur and also for SANJAY GUPTA 2026.07.13 12:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document SAO No.11 of 2016 and one anr. 5. Being aggrieved, the respondents/ defendants preferred the first appeal. Vide order dated 05.01.2016, the learned First Appellate Court framed the additional issues and remanded the matter to the learned trial Court. The rel Appellate Court is extracted hereunder: SAO No.11 of 2016 and one anr. passing a decree for actual deceased Amarjit Singh out of the above said land. Plaint presented on 15.09.2008. Value of suit for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction. Rs.195/- + Rs.130/-. This suit coming on this day, for final disposal before m (Gurdarshan Kaur), PCS, Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Faridkot, in the presence of Sh.B.S.Brar, Advocate, counsel for the plaintiffs, Sh.K.S.Dhaliwal Advocate counsel for defendants No.1 to 6, Sh.K.S.Mittal, Adv-counsel for defendant No.7 and Sh.A.S.Sekhon, Adv-counsel for defendants No.8 and 9. It is ordered that the plaintiffs have successfully established their case for declaration, permanent injunction and joint possession, as prayed for. The same is hereby decreed in against the defendants, with costs.” Being aggrieved, the respondents/ defendants preferred the first appeal. Vide order dated 05.01.2016, the learned First Appellate Court framed the additional issues and remanded the matter to the learned trial Court. The relevant portion of the judgment passed by the learned First Appellate Court is extracted hereunder:- “13. I have heard the contentions and rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record on file. Also there is an application for issue. Heard. Admittedly a suit for declaration was filed by Dalip Kaur respondent- others. In the written-statement filed before learned Lower court, defendants No.1 to 6 had taken the preliminary objection that the second suit regarding the same subject matter does not lie as previous suit of the same subject matter has been dismissed same parties on 02.09.2008. Admittedly, no issue regarding the same has been framed. Moreover the defendants had taken the plea that they are bonafide purchaser of the suit- joint possession of the share of deceased Amarjit Singh out of the above said land. Plaint presented on 15.09.2008. Value of suit for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction. This suit coming on this day, for final disposal before m (Gurdarshan Kaur), PCS, Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Faridkot, in the presence of Sh.B.S.Brar, Advocate, counsel for the plaintiffs, Sh.K.S.Dhaliwal Advocate counsel for defendants No.1 to 6, counsel for defendant No.7 and counsel for defendants No.8 and 9. It is ordered that the plaintiffs have successfully established their case for declaration, permanent injunction and joint possession, as prayed for. The same is hereby decreed in-favour of plaintiffs and e defendants, with costs.” Being aggrieved, the respondents/ defendants preferred the first appeal. Vide order dated 05.01.2016, the learned First Appellate Court framed the additional issues and remanded the matter to the learned trial evant portion of the judgment passed by the learned First I have heard the contentions and rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record on file. Also there is an application for framing additional rd. Admittedly a suit for declaration was filed by -plaintiff against Surinder Kaur and statement filed before learned Lower defendants No.1 to 6 had taken the preliminary ction that the second suit regarding the same subject matter does not lie as previous suit of the same subject matter has been dismissed-as-withdrawn, between the same parties on 02.09.2008. Admittedly, no issue regarding the same has been framed. Moreover, some of the defendants had taken the plea that they are bonafide -property. An objection regarding 4 joint possession of the share of Value of suit for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction. This suit coming on this day, for final disposal before me (Gurdarshan Kaur), PCS, Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Faridkot, in the presence of Sh.B.S.Brar, Advocate, counsel for the plaintiffs, Sh.K.S.Dhaliwal Advocate counsel for defendants No.1 to 6, counsel for defendant No.7 and counsel for defendants No.8 and 9. It is ordered that the plaintiffs have successfully established their case for declaration, permanent injunction and joint possession, as favour of plaintiffs and Being aggrieved, the respondents/ defendants preferred the first appeal. Vide order dated 05.01.2016, the learned First Appellate Court framed the additional issues and remanded the matter to the learned trial evant portion of the judgment passed by the learned First I have heard the contentions and rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record on framing additional rd. Admittedly a suit for declaration was filed by plaintiff against Surinder Kaur and statement filed before learned Lower defendants No.1 to 6 had taken the preliminary ction that the second suit regarding the same subject matter does not lie as previous suit of the same subject withdrawn, between the same parties on 02.09.2008. Admittedly, no issue , some of the defendants had taken the plea that they are bonafide property. An objection regarding SANJAY GUPTA 2026.07.13 12:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document SAO No.11 of 2016 and one anr. 6. Aggrieved of the aforesaid order dated 05.01.2016, the present appeal has been preferred. 7. I have heard learned the paper-book. SAO No.11 of 2016 and one anr. court-fee was also taken as the averments of the plaintiffs that court-fee has been correctly affixed, was denied and it was stated that proper court Present suit for declaration that plaintiff and defendant No.7 are owners in possession of the property as detailed in the head-note of the plaint and if such like suit between the same parties, was earlier decided had to be seen in the present case. Therefore, in view of the submissions made in the present application and pleadings of the parties, following additional issue are framed:- "6-A. Whether proper and required court been paid by the plaintiff on the plaint, if so its effect? OPD. 6-B. Whether the plaintiff filed any previous suit, which was subsequently dismissed 02.09.2008. if so its effect? OPD." 14. Therefore, in view of above discussion, judgment and decree under appeal cannot be sustained and is therefore, set-aside and the case is remanded back to the learned Lower court/its successor Court, with a direction to decide the matter afresh, where the parties through their counsel will appear on 05.02.201 already earlier led and hence, the learned Trial court/its successor Court will give three opportunities to both the parties to lead their evidence on additional issues only and there-after proceed as per law. Memo of costs be prepared. Lower court record be sent back along of this order. File of this court be consigned to the Record Room, Faridkot.” Aggrieved of the aforesaid order dated 05.01.2016, the present appeal has been preferred. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through book. fee was also taken as the averments of the plaintiffs fee has been correctly affixed, was denied and it at proper court-fee has not been affixed. Present suit for declaration that plaintiff and defendant No.7 are owners in possession of the property as detailed note of the plaint and if such like suit between the same parties, was earlier decided, effect of the same had to be seen in the present case. Therefore, in view of the submissions made in the present application and pleadings of the parties, following additional issue are Whether proper and required court-fee has not id by the plaintiff on the plaint, if so its Whether the plaintiff filed any previous suit, which was subsequently dismissed-as-withdrawn on 02.09.2008. if so its effect? OPD." Therefore, in view of above discussion, judgment and decree under appeal cannot be sustained and is therefore, aside and the case is remanded back to the learned Lower court/its successor Court, with a direction to decide the matter afresh, where the parties through their counsel will appear on 05.02.2016. As voluminous evidence has already earlier led and hence, the learned Trial court/its successor Court will give three opportunities to both the parties to lead their evidence on additional issues only and after proceed as per law. Memo of costs be prepared. Lower court record be sent back along-with copy of this order. File of this court be consigned to the Record Aggrieved of the aforesaid order dated 05.01.2016, the present counsel for the parties and gone through 5 fee was also taken as the averments of the plaintiffs fee has been correctly affixed, was denied and it fee has not been affixed. Present suit for declaration that plaintiff and defendant No.7 are owners in possession of the property as detailed note of the plaint and if such like suit between , effect of the same had to be seen in the present case. Therefore, in view of the submissions made in the present application and pleadings of the parties, following additional issue are fee has not id by the plaintiff on the plaint, if so its Whether the plaintiff filed any previous suit, which withdrawn on Therefore, in view of above discussion, judgment and decree under appeal cannot be sustained and is therefore, aside and the case is remanded back to the learned Lower court/its successor Court, with a direction to decide the matter afresh, where the parties through their counsel 6. As voluminous evidence has already earlier led and hence, the learned Trial court/its successor Court will give three opportunities to both the parties to lead their evidence on additional issues only and after proceed as per law. Memo of costs be with copy of this order. File of this court be consigned to the Record Aggrieved of the aforesaid order dated 05.01.2016, the present counsel for the parties and gone through SANJAY GUPTA 2026.07.13 12:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document SAO No.11 of 2016 and one anr. 8. A perusal of the record shows that the learned Court remanded the matter to the learned trial Court after framing two additional issues concerning the maintainability of the suit in view of the earlier suit the appellants was unwarranted on either count. The question of court fee, having regard to the nature of t capable of determination by the First Appellate Court itself, without relegating the matter to the trial Court for that limited purpose. 9. As regards maintainability, the respondents/defendants contended that the appellants/plaintiffs' earlier suit 13.01.2007, concerning the same subject matter withdrawn on 02.09.2008, rendering the present suit not maintainable. However, the order recording such withdra record by the respondents/defendants in support of this plea. the serious contention raised by respondents/ defendants as well as the order passed by the learned First Appellate Court, the certified copy of the order dated 02.09.2008 passed by the learned trial Court in Civil Suit No. 22 dated 13.01 representing the appellants/ plaintiffs. was in fact granted to file a fresh purchasers. The relevant part of the order dated 02.09.2008 is reproduced hereunder:- SAO No.11 of 2016 and one anr. A perusal of the record shows that the learned Court remanded the matter to the learned trial Court after framing two additional issues; one concerning deficit concerning the maintainability of the suit in view of the earlier suit the appellants been withdrawn. In the humble opinion of this Court, was unwarranted on either count. The question of court fee, having regard to the nature of the suit property and the reliefs claimed capable of determination by the First Appellate Court itself, without relegating the matter to the trial Court for that limited purpose. As regards maintainability, the respondents/defendants contended that the appellants/plaintiffs' earlier suit 13.01.2007, concerning the same subject matter withdrawn on 02.09.2008, rendering the present suit not maintainable. However, the order recording such withdra record by the respondents/defendants in support of this plea. the serious contention raised by respondents/ defendants as well as the order passed by the learned First Appellate Court, the certified copy of the dated 02.09.2008 passed by the learned trial Court in Civil Suit No. 22 dated 13.01.2007, was perused from the custody of the learned counsel representing the appellants/ plaintiffs. A reading thereof shows was in fact granted to file a fresh suit upon impleading the subsequent The relevant part of the order dated 02.09.2008 is reproduced “Present: Counsel for the parties. A perusal of the record shows that the learned First Appellate Court remanded the matter to the learned trial Court after framing two deficit of Court fee and the other concerning the maintainability of the suit in view of the earlier suit filed by In the humble opinion of this Court, remand was unwarranted on either count. The question of court fee, having regard he suit property and the reliefs claimed in the plaint, was capable of determination by the First Appellate Court itself, without relegating the matter to the trial Court for that limited purpose. As regards maintainability, the respondents/defendants contended that the appellants/plaintiffs' earlier suit, Civil Suit No. 22 of 13.01.2007, concerning the same subject matter, stood dismissed as withdrawn on 02.09.2008, rendering the present suit not maintainable. However, the order recording such withdrawal was never placed on the record by the respondents/defendants in support of this plea. Considering the serious contention raised by respondents/ defendants as well as the order passed by the learned First Appellate Court, the certified copy of the dated 02.09.2008 passed by the learned trial Court in Civil Suit No. .2007, was perused from the custody of the learned counsel A reading thereof shows that liberty suit upon impleading the subsequent The relevant part of the order dated 02.09.2008 is reproduced Counsel for the parties. 6 First Appellate Court remanded the matter to the learned trial Court after framing two he other filed by remand was unwarranted on either count. The question of court fee, having regard , was capable of determination by the First Appellate Court itself, without As regards maintainability, the respondents/defendants Civil Suit No. 22 of stood dismissed as withdrawn on 02.09.2008, rendering the present suit not maintainable. never placed on the Considering the serious contention raised by respondents/ defendants as well as the order passed by the learned First Appellate Court, the certified copy of the dated 02.09.2008 passed by the learned trial Court in Civil Suit No. .2007, was perused from the custody of the learned counsel that liberty suit upon impleading the subsequent The relevant part of the order dated 02.09.2008 is reproduced SANJAY GUPTA 2026.07.13 12:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document SAO No.11 of 2016 and one anr. Besides, even if the learned First Appellate Court, required the order dated 02.09.2008 passed in the previous Civil Suit No. 22 dated 13.01.2007 titled as produced, it could the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 rather than remanding the matter merely for this purpose. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents/ defendants also submits that a substantial plea of the respondents/ defendants being purchasers against valuable consideration was also not dec learned trial Court, which again in the humble opinion of this Court, can be decided by the learned first Appellate Court based on the pleadings and the evidence available on record. 11. In such circumstances and for the reasons recorded hereinabove, the order dated 05.01.2016 passed by the learned First Appellate Court is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded to the learned First Appellate Court to decide Appeal No. 145 of 01.04.2014, Beant Singh and consideration the pleadings as well as the evidence available on record and also adjudicating upon the issue of Court fee, effect of the SAO No.11 of 2016 and one anr. In view of the statement of the counsel for the plaintiff the suit stand dismissed as withdrawn file a fresh suit impleading new vendees. The file be consigned to the record room. Pronounced. 02.09.2008 Besides, even if the learned First Appellate Court, required the order dated 02.09.2008 passed in the previous Civil Suit No. 22 dated 13.01.2007 titled as Dalip Kaur and ors. Vs Surinde produced, it could have invoked its power under Or the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 rather than remanding the matter merely for this purpose. earned counsel for the respondents/ defendants also submits that a substantial plea of the respondents/ defendants being urchasers against valuable consideration was also not dec learned trial Court, which again in the humble opinion of this Court, can be decided by the learned first Appellate Court based on the pleadings and the evidence available on record. In such circumstances and for the reasons recorded hereinabove, the order dated 05.01.2016 passed by the learned First Appellate Court is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded to the learned First Appellate Court to decide Appeal No. 145 of 01.04.2014, Beant Singh and anr. Vs. Dalip Kaur and ors. consideration the pleadings as well as the evidence available on record and also adjudicating upon the issue of Court fee, effect of the In view of the statement of the counsel for the plaintiff the suit stand dismissed as withdrawn. Plaintiff is at liberty to file a fresh suit impleading new vendees. The file be consigned to the record room. Sd/-B.R.Garg, Addl.Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) Faridkot.” Besides, even if the learned First Appellate Court, required the order dated 02.09.2008 passed in the previous Civil Suit No. 22 dated Dalip Kaur and ors. Vs Surinder Kaur and ors. have invoked its power under Order 41 Rule 27 (1) (b) the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 rather than remanding the matter merely earned counsel for the respondents/ defendants also submits that a substantial plea of the respondents/ defendants being bona fide urchasers against valuable consideration was also not decided by the learned trial Court, which again in the humble opinion of this Court, can be decided by the learned first Appellate Court based on the pleadings and the In such circumstances and for the reasons recorded hereinabove, the order dated 05.01.2016 passed by the learned First Appellate Court is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded to the learned First Appellate Court to decide Appeal No. 145 of 01.04.2014, titled as Vs. Dalip Kaur and ors. afresh after taking into consideration the pleadings as well as the evidence available on record and also adjudicating upon the issue of Court fee, effect of the withdrawal 7 In view of the statement of the counsel for the plaintiff . Plaintiff is at liberty to file a fresh suit impleading new vendees. The file be Besides, even if the learned First Appellate Court, required the order dated 02.09.2008 passed in the previous Civil Suit No. 22 dated be (1) (b) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 rather than remanding the matter merely earned counsel for the respondents/ defendants also submits bona fide ided by the learned trial Court, which again in the humble opinion of this Court, can be decided by the learned first Appellate Court based on the pleadings and the In such circumstances and for the reasons recorded hereinabove, the order dated 05.01.2016 passed by the learned First Appellate Court is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded to the learned titled as after taking into consideration the pleadings as well as the evidence available on record withdrawal SANJAY GUPTA 2026.07.13 12:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document SAO No.11 of 2016 and one anr. of previous suit besides the plea of defendants/ respondents of purchasers. 12. Both the appeals are disposed of in the above terms. 13. The parties are directed to appear before the learned first Appellate Court on 21.07.2026. 14. Pending misc disposed of. 07.07.2026 sanjay Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable SAO No.11 of 2016 and one anr. previous suit besides the plea of defendants/ respondents of Both the appeals are disposed of in the above terms. The parties are directed to appear before the learned first Appellate Court on 21.07.2026. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable previous suit besides the plea of defendants/ respondents of bona fide Both the appeals are disposed of in the above terms. The parties are directed to appear before the learned first ellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand (HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No 8 bona fide The parties are directed to appear before the learned first ellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand SANJAY GUPTA 2026.07.13 12:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document