Judgment Ravi R.Tripathi, J.—The State of Gujarat, through Secretary, Revenue Department, is before this Court. The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the learned Joint District Judge and 9th Fast Track Court, Kheda at Nadiad in Civil Primary Appeal No. 143 of 2004 dated 07.05.2005, whereby the learned first appellate Judge was pleased to allow the appeal and quash the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Nadiad below application Exhibit 5 in Regular Civil Suit No. 230 of 2004 dated 30.09.2004, whereby the learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Nadiad was pleased to reject application Exhibit 5. 2. Heard learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Pathak for the petitioners and Mr. Parikh for the respondent - original plaintiff. 3. The dispute involved in the matter is that the authorities issued notice under Section 61 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code to the plaintiff, who is in possession of a land bearing survey number ‘NIL’, admeasuring 53.13.98 sq. mtr. situated to the northern side of city survey No. 6739 in the limits of Kanadvanj Nagarpalika. 4. The learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Nadiad has discussed at length and has noted in its order that the plaintiff has deliberately not impleaded Kapadvanj Nagarpalika as party to the suit. The plaintiff is undoubtedly claiming his possession and ‘right to continue in possession’ of that land through Kapadvanj Nagarpalika. The question involved in the matter is as to who is the owner of the land, Government or Nagarpalika, non-joining of Kapadvanj Nagarpalika as party to the proceeding, is a deliberate attempt on the part of the plaintiff to see that the proceedings are delayed and prolonged and for all that period, he continues in possession of the land in question on which he has is said to have constructed a shop and is carrying on his business. 4.1 The learned Civil Judge has rightly taken into consideration the reply of the plaintiff to the notice which was issued by the authorities under Section 61 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, wherein he requested that the authorities shall regularize his possession. Not only that, the City Survey Superintendent had also passed an order, in response to which, the plaintiff has admitted and agreed that he is ready to pay the prise which may be fixed by the authorities for the land in question. Not only that, the City Survey Superintendent had also passed an order, in response to which, the plaintiff has admitted and agreed that he is ready to pay the prise which may be fixed by the authorities for the land in question. 4.2 The first appellate Court, surprisingly, after having recorded in so many words that the question of ownership of the land is not in dispute, has drawn an inference that on the basis of the material produced on the record of the Civil Suit, it can be inferred that the disputed land is vested in Kapadvanj Nagarpalika. 4.3 This Court is surprised as to whether that was open to the first appellate Court to record this inference in absence of Kanadvanj Nagarpalika coming before the Court and claiming such vesting of land in it. 5. The sympathy, when misplaced, is very harmful and that is the case in the case on hand. The first appellate Court has placed mis-placed sympathy in favour of the plaintiff and has erred in passing order dated 07.05.2005, allowing the appeal and quashing the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.). 5.1 In absence of Kapadvanj Nagarpalika and in absence of any claim from it that the Government land is vested in it, any amount of concession given by Kapadvanj Nagarpalika to the plaintiff does not remove the defect in the right of the plaintiff to continue in possession of the land in question. 5.2 This Court is of the opinion that here is a plaintiff who has filed the suit without impleading Kapadvanj Nagarpalika as party and is trying to enjoy the property by getting an order in a suit and when application Exhibit 5 is rejected, he approaches the first appellate Court and obtains an order from the first appellate Court and thereafter, he is able to see that the proceedings are contested at the High Court level. 6. In the result, the petition is allowed. The order passed by the first appellate Court in Civil Primary Appeal No. 143 of 2004 dated 07.05.2005 is quashed and set aside. The order passed by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.) Nadiad is restored. The learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Nadiad is directed to proceed with the hearing of the suit and decide the same as expeditiously as possible, preferably within 3 months from the date of receipt of writ of this order. The order passed by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.) Nadiad is restored. The learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Nadiad is directed to proceed with the hearing of the suit and decide the same as expeditiously as possible, preferably within 3 months from the date of receipt of writ of this order. Rule is made absolute. No costs.