JUDGMENT

Veerendr Singh Siradhana, J. - By order dated 29th July, 2011, the Additional District Judge No. 1, Sikar, while allowing the appeal of the non-appellants No. 1 to 4, remanded the matter to the trial Court for decision afresh impleading the non-appellants No. 1 to 4, as a party to the suit proceedings, who were not impleaded as party defendant.

2. Briefly, the essential skeletal material facts necessary for appreciation of the controversy are that the plaintiff-appellant-Rameshwar, instituted suit proceedings on 25th October, 2005, impleading non-appellant No. 5-Anchi Devi, Subhash and other nonappellants No. 7 to 11, for declaration of right of way and permanent injunction. Nonappellants No. 1 to 4 were not impleaded as party to the suit proceedings. It is pleaded case of the plaintiff-appellant that temporary injunction was granted on 28th March, 2006, against non-appellants No. 5 and 6 by the trial Court. Pending the proceedings before the trial Court, non-appellants No. 1 to 4 purchased the subject land from nonappellants No. 5 and 6 on 7th December, 2006, without permission of the trial Court and without knowledge of the plaintiff-appellant contrary to the mandate of section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for short, ''the Act of 1882). The trial Court decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 29th May, 2010; with a declaration and an order of permanent injunction against non-appellants No. 5, and 6 and in favour of the plaintiff-appellant.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant, reiterating the pleaded facts and grounds of the memo of appeal, asserted that the rights of the plaintiff-appellant could not be transferred pending the suit proceedings in the face of contemplation under Section 52 of the Act of 1882.

4. It is further urged that non-appellants No. 5 and 6, namely Jhamri Devi and Subhash, did not file any appeal against the judgment and decree dated 29th May, 2010, within the statutory period of limitation of thirty days as contemplated under Article 116(b) of the Limitation Act, 1963 or even thereafter. Thus, in view of the contemplation under section 35 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (for short, ''the Act of 1963'') read with section 11 CPC; the judgment and decree dated 29th May, 2010, became final and binding on the parties to the suit proceedings.

5. Further, the non-appellants No. 1 to 4, the transferees-pendente-lite of non-appellants No. 5 and 6; are bound by the judgment and decree dated 29th May, 2010, and therefore, the appeal instituted before the Court below after expiry of period of statutory limitation, and that too after 12 months, was not maintainable. The appeal, therefore, ought to have been dismissed in the face of contemplation under section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

6. Moreover, the transferees-Pendante-lite dishonestly manipulated and obtained a wrong report from the office of the lower appellate Court to the effect that the appeal was instituted within the period of limitation. Thus, the appeal was illegally admitted for hearing without any notice to the plaintiff-appellant as to the issue of limitation. In support of his submissions, reliance is placed on the opinion in the case of Bibi Zubaida Khatoon vs. Nabi Hassan Saheb and another with Amichand Aggarwal vs. Nabi Hasan: AIR 2004 SC 173, Narbada Devi Gupta vs. Birendra Kumar Jaiswal and another: AIR 2004 SC 175, Shankarrao Goindrao Naik vs. Kisanlal Nagarmal and others: AIR 1950 Madhya Bharti 19, Jagdish Chandra Sinha and another vs. Maharajadhiraj Dr. Sir Kameshwar Singh Bahadur and others: AIR 1953 Patna 178 (Vol. 40, C.N. 61), Forbesganj Jagdish Mill Ltd. vs. Kaloram: AIR 1985 Patna 212, Subramania Gurukal and ors. vs. Arulmighu Thirumaleswaraswamy Deity and another: AIR 1984 Madras 217, Chothy Theyyathan vs. John Thomas and ors: AIR 1997 Kerala 249, Jitendralal Dattaroy and another vs. Bharat Loan Co., Ltd.: 1956 Assam 116 (AIR V 43 C 33 July), Rahim Bux vs. State of Rajasthan & Others: SBCWP Nos. 269