IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH SAO-33-2025 (O&M)

Decided on:-15.09.2025 Balraj and others ....Petitioners..

vs.

The Scheduled Caste Land Owning Society Ltd. Bitmara and others ....Respondents.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present: Mr. Prateek Mahajan, Advocate, for the appellants-defendants Mr. Vishnu Dutt Sharma, Advocate for contesting respondent No.1-plaintiff.

*****

HARKESH MANUJA J. (Oral)

CM-12519-CII-2025

1. This is an application under Rule 2 Chapter I-C of the High COurt Rules and Orders Vol. V read with Section 151 CPC for seeking leave to appellant No.29(i) to (iii) to file appeal as legal representative of Bharath Singh (deceased) appellant No.29.

2. In view of the averments made in the application, the same is allowed and leave is granted under the aforesaid Rules and Orders to file the present appeal.

Main case

1. By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to an order dated 27.02.2025 passed by the Court of Ld. Additional District Judge, Hisar (for short, “First Appellate Court”) whereby, the judgment and decree dated 20.01.2020 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hisar, has been set aside, and the matter has been remanded to the learned Trial Court for its fresh adjudication.

2. Briefly stating, respondent No.1-the Scheduled Caste Land Owning Society Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘SCLO’) filed a suit for declaration claiming itself to be owner of agricultural land measuring 395 kanal 1 marla, situated in the revenue estate of Village Bithmara, District Hisar, based on sale certificate dated 28.04.1965, followed by mutation No.3157 dated 22.11.1966. Respondent No.1-SCLO also prayed for possession of part of the suit property by claiming that the appellants as well as the other defendants were in unauthorized and illegal possession thereof. Along with the suit, an application under Order 1 Rule 8 CPC was also filed by respondent No.1-SCLO (plaintiff) so as to treat the suit been filed in a representative capacity against the defendants. On 27.05.2015, the ld. Trial Court allowed the application filed under Order 1 Rule 8 CPC and ordered for issuance of notice to all the defendants. However, despite the order, no steps in pursuance thereof were ever taken and the suit was contested by respondent No.1-SCLP (plaintiff) against the defendents only, who were impleaded by name in the plaint.

2.1 The learned Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 20.01.2020 though dismissed the suit filed at the instance of respondent No.1-SCLO, however, recorded a positive finding to the effect that the land in question was Nazool one which was admittedly allotted and transferred in favour of respondent No.1. It was also recorded that respondent No.1-SCLO was owner in possession of the suit land. Having recorded the aforesaid, the suit preferred at the instance of respondent No.1-SCLO was dismissed while holding that respondent No.1-SCLO failed to prove the illegal possession of defendants over the suit land.

3. Aggrieved thereof, respondent No.1-SCLO filed first appeal. The same was decided vide judgment and decree dated 27.02.2025 while setting aside the judgment and decree dated 20.01.2020 and remanding the matter to the ld. Trial Court to decide the suit afresh.

4. Impugning the order dated 27.02.2025, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the ld. Appellate Court went wrong while holding that no finding on the issue of relief of declaration was recorded by the learned Trial Court. While referring to paragraph No.14 from the judgment and decree dated 20.01.2020 passed by the learned Trial Court, it was submitted that a specific finding was recorded to the effect that respondent No.1-SCLO was allotted the land in question and the same was even transferred in its name. Further, learned counsel also points out that respondent No.1-SCLO did not press for its application under Order 1 Rule 8 CPC before the ld. Trial Court and as such, was estopped at this stage to ask for rema