JUDGMENT :

(Jaspreet Singh, J.)

1. Heard Heard Sri Sudeep Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Brijesh Kumar Saxena, learned counsel who has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent no. 1 in F.A.F.O.No. 158 of 2023 and F.A.F.O. No. 162 of 2023. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that another appeal bearing F.A.F.O. No. 162 of 2023 which is connected also arises from the same judgment of remand and as such both the appeals can be considered and decided together.

2. The instant F.A.F.O. has been preferred under Order 43 Rule (1) (u) C.P.C. assailing the order of remand. The learned counsel for the appellants in both the cases is assailing the judgment and decree passed by the Lower Appellate Court dated 18.04.2023 whereby two civil appeals bearing No. 10 of 2022 and 11 of 2022 have been allowed and the matter has been remanded to the Trial Court for decision afresh.

3. Sri B.K. Saxena, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.1-Udairaj in both the appeals submits that since the only legal issue regarding sufficiency of grounds for remand is involved, accordingly, the matter can be heard at the admission stage itself. It is in this view of the matter that the Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties at the admission stage and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties disposes of the both the appeals by this common judgment.

4. Certain facts which are relevant for a proper adjudication of the aforesaid appeals are being noticed hereinafter:-

5. The property in question which is the subject matter of the dispute is a three storied house situate in Govind Bagh, Balrampur, Pargana, Tehsil and District Balrampur. The said property was initially recorded in the name of Smt. Sushila Devi wife of Durga Prasad. The appellant no. 1 namely Sanjay Kumar was the tenant of the said premises since the time of Smt. Sushila Devi. On 25.06.2001, Smt. Sushila Devi executed a registered sale deed in respect of the entire property in favour of Reshu Gupta who was a minor through his guardian and father Ram Shankar Gupta (respondent no. 2 in the connected F.A.F.O. No. 162 of 2023 but is not a party in F.A.F.O. No. 158 of 2023).

6. At this stage, the Court found that Reshu Gupta is not a party in F.A.F.O. No. 158 of 2023 and thus the Court required the learned counsel for the appellant to implead Sri Reshu Gupta who was the appellant-vendor as a party in F.A.F.O. No. 158 of 2023 and he is permitted to carry out the necessary amendment in the memo of appeal of Appeal No. 158 of 2023. This has been necessitated on account of the fact that Reshu Gupta and Ram Shankar Gupta are already parties in F.A.F.O. No. 162 of 2023, accordingly, in order to avoid any future complications as well to correct the array of parties and to do substantial justice between the parties. The Court has permitted the learned counsel for the parties to do so during the course of the day.

7. As the Court has permitted the appellants to implead Sri Reshu as a party to the proceedings. The appellants shall also be at liberty of moving an application before the Lower Appellate Court to correct the array of parties in the memo of first appeal including by seeking an amendment in the plaint for impleading Sri Reshu Gupta. In case if any such application is moved, the same be considered appropriately in light of the fact that Sri Reshu Gupta has already been permitted to be impleaded in this appeal.

8. The facts would indicate that the originally the property belonged to Smt. Suhsila Gupta who had sold the same to Reshu Gupta who was a minor at the relevant time by means of sale deed dated 25.06.2001. Subsequently, Reshu Gupta sold the property to the present appellants-Sanjay Kumar Modi and Rashmi Modi by means of registered sale deed dated 06.01.2006. This sale deed of the year 2006 was also executed by the minor Reshu Gupta through his guardian and father Ram Shanker Gupta.

9. The record would further indicate that Smt. Sushila G