R. RAMAKRISHNA, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the Judgment and decree dated 25-8-1990 in R. A. No. 168 of 1973 passed by the learned Prl. Civil Judge, Hubli. ( 2 ) APPELLANT Basavantappa was the second defendant before the trial Court and appellant before first Appellate Court. The respondents 1 to 6 were the plaintiffs before the trial Court. Respondent No. 7 was the first defendant and father of plaintiffs 1 to 5 and husband of plaintiff No. 6 Ningavva. The 8th respondent was the third defendant, who died during the pendency of original suit. ( 3 ) THE plaintiffs instituted a suit for declaration that alienation of the properties described in Schedules A to C made by the second defendant in favour of defendants 2 to 4 are not binding and for partition and possession of their shares in the suit properties A to E. ( 4 ) THE suit schedule properties are: (A) R. S. No. 53/1 measuring 5 acres and 05 guntas. (b) R. S. No. 303/1 measuring 3 acres and 35 guntas. (c) (d) (e) not concerned in this appeal. ( 5 ) THE case of the appellant is that, the 7th respondent exchanged a land R. S. No. 53/1 with the appellant's land R. S. No. 303/1. In addition, the appellant paid a cash of Rs. 500/ -. This was done under a registered deed. Subsequently the 7th respondent alleged to have sold R. S. No. 303/1 to tbe third defendant Venkatesh Narasimha shirhatti (shortly referred to as 'shirhatti') and delivered the possession. The exchange and sale were also questioned in the suit. Defendant No. 3 was placed ex parte and the suit was further proceeded. The trial Court decreed the suit. As far as this appellant is concerned, regarding R. S. No. 53/1 and R. S. No. 303/1, the decree reads:"plaintiff and defendant No. 1 shall recover possession of the land R. S. No. 53/1 from the appellant (defendant No. 2 ). The defendant No. 2 (appellant) is entitled to recover possession of the land r. S. No. 303/1 from defendant No. 3 and future mesne profits. " ( 6 ) THE appellant being aggrieved by the same, preferred an appeal in R. A. No. 168 of 1973 before the learned Principal Civil Judge, Hubli, who dismissed the appeal. with some modification. The defendant No. 2 (appellant) is entitled to recover possession of the land r. S. No. 303/1 from defendant No. 3 and future mesne profits. " ( 6 ) THE appellant being aggrieved by the same, preferred an appeal in R. A. No. 168 of 1973 before the learned Principal Civil Judge, Hubli, who dismissed the appeal. with some modification. During the pendency of the appeal, it was revealed that defendant No. 3 was a dead person and that the plaintiffs bad wrongly impleaded defendant No. 3 Shirhalti, as the person who had purchased R. S. No. 303/1 from defendant No. 1 and in fact defendant No. 1 sold R. S. No. 303/1 to one narasimha Rangachar Kudekar (shortly called as 'kudckar') who is in actual possession and enjoyment and Shirhatti has nothing to do with the land. ( 7 ) THE appellant filed application before the appellate Court under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for leave to impleade Kudekar in place of shirhatti. The said application was opposed by the plaintiffs. The application was rejected by the Court. Thereafter, the appeal was heard and dismissed. ( 8 ) AT the time of admission, this Court formulated the substantial question of law involved for determination as hereunder:"whether the Courts-below were in error in granting a decree for possession of Sy. No. 53 against appellant while, in view of the failure of the plaintiffs in impleading the subsequent alienee of Sy. No. 303/1 the plaintiffs have disabled themselves from restoring to appellant his land Sy. No. 303/1 given in exchange in consequence of which appellant would be deprived of both his own land and the land obtained in exchange?" ( 9 ) SRI Ajit J. Gunjal, learned Advocate for the appellant has submitted that, the courts-below have committed legal error in passing the impugned orders affecting the appellant without proper materials on record. ( 10 ) EX. D-1 is the Registered Exchange deed dated 31-1-1966 in respect of lands bearing Sy. Nos. 53/1 and 303/1. Appellant also paid a cash of Rs. 500/- in this exchange deed to the first defendant The plaintiffs have filed the suit of false allegations that after exchange, first defendant sold Sy. No. 303/1 to one Shirhatti (defendant No. 3) for Rs. 4,000/- on 20-5-1967. Nos. 53/1 and 303/1. Appellant also paid a cash of Rs. 500/- in this exchange deed to the first defendant The plaintiffs have filed the suit of false allegations that after exchange, first defendant sold Sy. No. 303/1 to one Shirhatti (defendant No. 3) for Rs. 4,000/- on 20-5-1967. The third defendant has not appeared before the Court either to accept or to deny the transaction. The plaintiffs have not filed any copy of the sale deed in respect of this sale. The plaintiffs have also not issued any legal notice to Shirhatti as they have done in respect of other purchasers. Even the evidence of the 6th plaintiff as P. W. 1 is not convincing. She admitted that she do not know for what price Sy. No. 303/1 was sold to defendant no. 3, Shirhatti. The trial Court with this insufficient evidence, held that, defendant no. 2 is entitled to recover 'b' Schedule land from the third defendant. The trial court not insisted for documentary proof when admittedly defendant No. 3 has been placed ex parte. ( 11 ) THE fact that the third defendant is no more, came to be known when the notice of the appeal was issued. When the appellant was making efforts to bring the legal representatives on records, he came to know that the third defendant was not the person who has purchased the land in Sy. No. 303/1 but it was one Kudekar. When the appellant filed an application under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil procedure, to impleade Kudekar as a necessary party, curiously the plaintiffs have opposed the application and the Court also dismissed that application. The learned civil Judge having knowledge of these facts without allowing the application for impleading, treated the appeal as abated for not bringing the L. Rs. of defendant No. 3 on record, when admittedly, it Was made known that the third defendant was an unnecessary party before the trial Court. The learned Civil Judge again committed the same mistake by holding that the appellant has not taken this contention is his written statement, knowing that this fact has come to light for the first time to the knowledge of the appellant during appeal time. ( 12 ) THIS reasoning of the first appellate Court resulted in the deprivation to the appellant his right to recover the land in Sy. ( 12 ) THIS reasoning of the first appellate Court resulted in the deprivation to the appellant his right to recover the land in Sy. No. 303/1 and the decree of the trial court on this point has become unenforceable and nullity. Even at that stage, the appellate Court has not insisted for proof in respect of the averments made by the plaintiffs in respect of sale of Sy. No. 303/1. ( 13 ) THE plaintiffs callousness in impleading Shirhatti as the purchaser of the land in Sy. No. 303/1 and the Courts non-vigilant attitude has caused a heavy penalty on the appellant to lose his land, Rs. 500/- and the lands obtained in exchange. This lead - the appellant to file this second appeal against a wrong and dead person. ( 14 ) THE law is well settled that the mistake committed by a Court should not come in the way of a litigant in securing justice. The principle is embodied in the famous dictum "actus curiae nominem gravabit". The doctrine of vigilantibus, et non dormentibus, jura subvenient is attracted to the case of the plaintiffs. Law helps those, who are vigilant and not those who sleep. In other words, law comes to the rescue of such persons, who are themselves vigilant about their rights. ( 15 ) NOW the next question is, whether the case required a remittance to the trial Court to set right the anomalies now come in the way of execution the decree in respect of'a' and 'b' Schedules properties, as the litigation now confined to this sole question. Admittedly, the land in Sy. No. 303/1 was sold by defendant No. 1 during 1967. To cover the long lapse of time, the clock has to be set back. Due to the negligence committed by the plaintiffs in not unpleading a correct party, the appellant is prejudiced and with the result that he has to lose his property. Hence the substantial question of law is answered in the affirmative. In the result, I make the following. ( 16 ) THE Judgment and decree of the trial Court and the first appellate Court touching the matter in respect of R. S. No. 53/1 and R. S. No. 303/1 (Items A and B) of the suit schedule properties are set aside. In respect of these properties, the status quo is maintained. In the result, I make the following. ( 16 ) THE Judgment and decree of the trial Court and the first appellate Court touching the matter in respect of R. S. No. 53/1 and R. S. No. 303/1 (Items A and B) of the suit schedule properties are set aside. In respect of these properties, the status quo is maintained. The order of this Court will not disturb the Judgment and decree concerning the suit schedule properties at Items C to E. In view of the peculiar circumstances, the parties are directed to bear their own costs. --- *** --- .