The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of adhering to principles of natural justice, procedural provisions, and the need for judicious exercise of discretion in condoning delay.

JUDGMENT

1. This misc. appeal has been filed under Order 41 Rule read with Rule 23-A of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'CPC') against the impugned judgment dated 27.10.2005 passed by the Additional District Judge, Khetri in Civil Regular Appeal No.13/2004 by which the judgment and decree dated 08.02.1994 passed by Civil Judge, Khetri, District, Jhunjhunu was quashed and-set-aside and the matter was remanded to the Civil Judge to decide the suit afresh after affording the opportunity of hearing to both sides.

2. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment appellant- plaintiff has submitted this appeal inter alia on the ground that the original suit for permanent injunction was instituted in the year 1984 and the same was decreed by the learned Civil Judge vide judgment dated 08.02.1994 and the original defendants- respondents were directed not to dispossess the plaintiffs- appellants from the land in question without following the process of law and in the alternative, a direction was issued to regularize the possession of appellants-plaintiffs, if permissible as per law.

3. Counsel for the appellants-plaintiffs submitted that the original defendants were satisfied with the judgment dated 08.02.1994 and they have not assailed the same before the Appellate Court. Hence, the judgment dated 08.02.1994 has attained finality to their extent.

4. Counsel further submitted that the present respondents namely Nagarmal and Jamman, who were not party to the suit submitted a time-barred appeal after 10 years and 8 months after judgment dated 08.02.1994 under Section 96 of CPC before the Court of Additional District Judge, Khetri alongwith an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act alongwith an application seeking leave to file appeal.

5. Learned counsel further submitted that without even issuing notice or giving opportunity of hearing, the application seeking leave to file the appeal was allowed and the delay of 10 years and 8 months was condoned and thereafter the appeal of the respondents was allowed in contravention of the provisions of law.

6. Counsel also submitted that the Appellate Court has passed the impugned-judgment in-violation of Order 41 Rule 33 CPC without formulating the points of determination. In the said judgment, the Appellate Court has formulated three points which are prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss, as if the Appellate Court was deciding the temporary injunction application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of CPC.

7. Counsel submitted that the respondent Nagarmal and one Prahlad Singh, son of Jhuntharam, who is brother of respondent No.2 Jamman, filed a separate suit with regard to the same land in question by playing the game of hide and seek before the Civil Court and the same was decreed on 26.04.2006.

8. Counsel further submitted that against the said judgment and decree dated 26.04.2006, the appellants-plaintiffs submitted a Civil Regular First Appeal which was allowed on 25.11.2017 and the judgment and decree dated 26.04.2006 was quashed and set aside.

9. He further submitted that all these persons were in collusion and their sole objective was to defeat the decree passed in favour of the plaintiffs.

10. Lastly, the counsel for the appellants-defendants submitted that during pendency of Civil Regular First Appeal submitted by the respondent No.1 and brother of respondent No.2, the Municipal Board, Khetri, District, Jhunjhunu has allotted the Patta No.557 on 05.03.2013 to the plaintiffs and the same has not been challenged by the respondents before any competent court of law.

11. Learned counsel further submitted that under these circumstances, the impugned judgment and decree dated 27.10.2005 is not sustainable in the eye of law and the same is liable to be quashed and set aside by this Court.

12. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 submitted that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were not party to the suit and they were not aware about the judgment and decree dated