This civil revision is directed against judgment and decree dated 10-10-1997 passed by learned District Judge, T.T. Singh, accepting appeal of respondents and proceeding to dismiss petitioner's suit for possession through specific performance, which had earlier been decreed by learned Civil Judge through judgment and decree dated 11-4-1995.
2. Upon contesting pleadings of the parties, 8 issues were framed by learned trial Judge. Evidence was recorded. Thereafter, the suit of the petitioner was decreed by learned Civil Judge, T.T. Singh.
On appeal, this decree was set aside by learned District Judge, T.T. Singh in Civil Appeal No.53-13 of 1997 filed by respondents. He also proceeded to dismiss the suit of the petitioner. The operative part of the impugned judgment begins from para.11 thereof. In the middle of para.11, learned District Judge recorded the following findings:-- "The present suit was filed by the respondent on 4-1-1994. Till that time the appellants had not acquired the proprietary rights in the suit property. Proprietary rights were acquired by the appellant on 5-4-1994 when Mutation No.412, Exh.P.2 was sanctioned in favour of the appellants.
The respondent has not mentioned about the previous litigation and dismissal of the suits in the plaint of present suit. He has made material concealment. Even on 4-1-1994 when the present suit was filed (without considering the legality, validity of agreement P.1) the alleged agreement was not enforceable at law because the appellant had not acquired any vested right in the suit land.
Respondent had no cause of action at that time. Had the respondent mentioned the facts regarding previous litigation, the plaint should have been rejected. Thus the respondent has no cause of action on 4-1-1994 to institute the present suit therefore, the plaint is liable to be rejected under Order 7, rule 11, C.P.C. In view of this finding of trial Court on Issues Nos. 1 to 4 are incorrect and hereby reversed."
3. At the very outset, learned counsel for the respondents was confronted with the crucial question that if proprietary rights were granted to the petitioner on 5-4-1994, during pendency of his suit, was the learned District Judge competent to reject the plaint in the suit filed on. 4-11-1994 for non- disclosure of cause of action owing to absence of proprietary rights at the time the suit was filed.
Learned counsel for the respondents could not seriously contest the proposition that if the proprietary rights were granted to the respondents during pendency of the suit, petitioner came to be vested with a cause of action, even in a suit for specific performance filed prior to the grant of proprietary rights. Learned counsel for the respondents, however, contested the present civil revision mainly on the ground that petitioner has failed to prove existence and execution of agreement to sell dated 1-2-1968 in his favour.
4. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that according to settled principles of law, if a cause of action matures during pendency of a suit, plaintiff's suit cannot be dismissed or plaint therein cannot be rejected. In the present case, there is no doubt that the suit was filed on 4-1-1994 by the petitioner for possession through specific performance of agreement dated 1-2-1968 and at the time of institution of the suit, respondents had not been granted proprietary rights. However, during pendency of the suit, proprietary rights were granted to the respondents on 5-4-1994. Petitioner's cause of action as plaintiff thus, matured and came to be vested in him during pendency of the suit. In view thereof, the observations or learned District Judge in the impugned judgment that plaint was rejectable under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C., are not sustainable.
5. Having held that petitioner came to be vested with cause of action during pendency of the suit, I re-examined the entire impugned judgment. Bare reading of the impugned judgment reveals that other findings could have been probably given under the influence of observations that plain did not disclose a cause of action. As such interest of justice and principles of equity demand that the entire impugned judgment and decree be set aside and case be remitted back to learned District Judge for rehearing and redeciding the appeal afresh on all issues on the basis of law and evidence. Accordingly, impugned judgment and decree dated 10-10-1997 is set aside. The case is remanded back to learned District Judge, T.T. Singh for redeciding the same himself or assigning the same for redecision to any learned Additional District Judge. The appeal shall be deemed to be pending and parties shall be given full opportunity to raise all propositions and grounds in appeal, which shall be redecided in accordance with law and on the basis of evidence. Parties are directed to appear before learned District Judge, T.T. Singh on 20-3-2003. This civil revision is accepted in above terms. There shall be no order as to costs.