Mr. M.M.S. Bedi, J.:- The appellants in this appeal are the successors of Jaswant Singh, plaintiff who had filed a suit for declaration against State of Punjab, Deputy Commissioner and Tehsildar, besides defendant-respondents 4 to 7 for a declaration that land measuring 4 kanals 14 marlas mentioned in the heading of the plaint vests in the plaintiff and that defendant- respondents No.4 to 6 who are owners in possession and defendants No.1 to 3 have got no concern i.e. right, title and interest in the property and that the revenue entries pertaining to the land in dispute has got no effect on the rights of the plaintiff and defendants No.4 to 6.

2. The suit of the plaintiff was decreed holding that the plaintiff was co-owner with other co-sharers as per Civil Court judgment and decree dated September 29, 1976 which had attained finality having not been challenged by the defendants. It was further held that the defendants are at liberty to claim their title as per law. The plaintiff filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Ludhiana. During the pendency of the appeal, an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC was filed by Mohinderpal Singh S/o Kalu Ram and Kashmiri Lal Malik son of Jiwan Dass for impleading them as party in the appeal. The Appellate Court allowed their application observing that they are necessary and proper parties for the adjudication of the matter holding that as the matter in dispute cannot be determined in their absence, the appeal filed by Jaswant Singh was dismissed and case was remanded back to the trial Court for providing an opportunity to Mohinderpal Singh and Kashmiri Lal Malik by arraying them as parties for determination of the real questions involved in the present case. Aggrieved against the said order of impleadment and remand, the plaintiffs have filed this appeal.

3. Learned counsel for the plaintiff- appellants Ms.Promila Nain has vehemently contended that the impugned order dated July 10, 2014 is illegal as the appeal of the plaintiff- appellants has been wrongly dismissed on the basis of an application filed by respondents No.8 and 9 under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. It was urged that in case the lower Appellate Court had found that any case was made out on behalf of respondents No.8 and 9 then it should have framed an issue and sent for the report of the trial Court by recording evidence of the respective parties and should have decided the appeal on merits or in the alternative, the rights of respondents No.8 and 9 could have been determined by the lower Appellate Court itself.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents No.8 and 9, Mr. Arihant Jain has vehemently urged that the adjudication of the controversy regarding land in dispute without impleading respondents No.8 and 9 would have been illegal in view of the prima facie strong case regarding ownership of respondents No.8 and 9.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the plaintiff- appellants and with an objective to understand the controversy involved in the case and the impact of the decree which was passed in favour of the plaintiff- Jaswant Singh by trial Court, I have carefully gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. The suit of Jaswant Singh – plaintiff was decreed to the extent that he was co-sharer as per Civil Court judgment and decree dated September 29, 1976 which had attained finality. With the assistance of counsel for the appellants I have gone through the judgment dated September 29, 1976, which has been appended with this appeal as annexure P-3, and it indicates that one Hira Singh as plaintiff had filed a suit against Gram Panchayat, Habowal Kalan, Gram Sabha, Habowal Kalan and 62 other defendants, for declaration that the land measuring 162 kanals 9 marlas situated in the revenue estate of Habowal Kalan, Had Bast No. 102, Tehsil and District Ludhiana, mentioned in the heading of the plaint of that suit vested in plaintiff and defendants No.3 to 64 claiming that they are owners in po