Order 1. Heard counsels appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length Pleadings are complete. The writ petition is listed for admission. As agreed between the parties, the writ petition is being heard finally. 2. The impugned order in the instant writ petition is dated 20th December, 2011 passed in T.A. No. 1 of 2011 by the District Judge-II, Garhwa. 3. The petitioner's father Sarju Ram executed two sale deeds and transferred certain land in favour of the contesting respondent nos. 1 and 2 in the year 1982. A deed of re-conveyance was also executed in the same year. Subsequently in the year 1984 father of the petitioner Sarju Ram claimed specific performance of the deed of re-conveyance. The said suit was dismissed. Thereafter Sarju Ram executed sale deeds in favour of other persons regarding a portion of the suit property in respect of some plots, which was sold to respondent nos. 1 and 2. Respondent nos. 1 and 2 instituted Title Suit No. 45 of 1994 and Sarju Ram was arrayed as defendant no. 19. During the pendency of the suit defendant no. 19, Sarju Ram died without filing written statement. Thereafter an application under Order XXII Rule 4 (4) C.P.C. was preferred for granting exemption from filing substitution application. The said application was allowed vide order dated 21.2.2002 and the suit proceeded which was decreed. The petitioner submits that he filed written statement after the death of his father, which was not accepted. The aforesaid suit was decreed on 20th December, 2010; defendant no. 9 in the said suit is a purchaser from deceased Sarju Ram and he preferred Title Appeal No. 1 of 2011 arraying the petitioner as respondent no. 20. A cross-objection has been preferred at the behest of the petitioner, which has been dismissed by means of the impugned order. 4. The admitted fact is that the petitioner has also instituted a suit vide T.S. No. 51 of 2011 on 28th April, 2011, which is still pending. The grievance of the petitioner is two fold. First argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that the contesting respondent was liable to be substituted in place of defendant no. 19 Sarju Ram, as the petitioner is his son and heir and he was very much alive and eager to contest the suit. He had also filed written statement, which was not accepted by the Court. First argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that the contesting respondent was liable to be substituted in place of defendant no. 19 Sarju Ram, as the petitioner is his son and heir and he was very much alive and eager to contest the suit. He had also filed written statement, which was not accepted by the Court. The second contention is that two sale deeds could not have been executed as it is hit by section 46 of the C.N.T. Act. The precise objection in the cross-objection preferred in T.A. No. 1 of 2011 is also to the same effect that the sale deeds are in contravention of the provisions of section 46 of the C.N.T. Act. The submission of the learned counsel is that sale deeds are invalid, besides the petitioner is deprived of preferring an appeal as well as he was not arrayed or substituted in the suit and, therefore, he will suffer irreparable loss. The suit proceeded against the petitioner taking advantage of the fact that late Sarju Ram failed to file a W.S. And the Court allowed application under Order XXII Rule 4(4) C.P.C. 5. Sri P.K. Prasad assisted by Sri S.K. Tiwary, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the contesting respondents submitted that since the suit T.S. No. 51 of 2011 is pending at the instance of the petitioner himself and the precise objection raised in the said suit is also regarding section 46 of the C.N.T. Act, therefore, the petitioner cannot be allowed to pursue two remedies simultaneously for the same property and the same cause of action. 6. Perusal of the impugned order shows that the cross-objection has been rejected on the ground that the question of sale deed hit by section 46 of the C.N.T. Act has not been raised in the suit and, therefore, the cross-objection on this issue cannot be looked into. The cross-objector has laid emphasis on the fact that the transfer made without prior sanction of the Deputy Commissioner is invalid and barred by section 46 of the C.N.T. Act, in any case the learned District Judge-II has rejected the cross-objection because the question regarding bar under the C.N.T. Act was not an issue before the trial Court and, therefore, Radhey Shyam Ram , petitioner is not aggrieved by judgment of the lower Court and, therefore, he has no locus standi to file cross-objection. 7. 7. I have given careful consideration to the respective arguments of the parties. At the very outset, evidently the suit proceeded without substituting defendant no. 19 sarju Ram, since he had not filed written statement before he died. The impleadment application of the petitioner was also rejected and consequently his written statement was not taken on record. The appeal was preferred by the subsequent purchaser and the petitioner has been arrayed as one of the respondents. This gave an opportunity to the petitioner to prefer cross-objection, which has been rejected firstly on the ground that the cross-objector Radhey Shyam Ram has not been able to setup his right either against the appellant or all other respondents. The grievance of the petitioner is that the land could not be sold as the transfer is in complete violation of provisions of section 46 of the C.N.T. Act. The petitioner has no doubt instituted a suit, which is pending, but since the cross-objection on the same ground has already been rejected, obviously it will have an adverse effect on the merit of the suit. The contesting plaintiff/ respondent in the instant writ petition has already got a declaration in his favour without examining the question as to whether a valid transfer could be affected in view of section 46 of the C.N.T. Act. The Court below was of the view that the petitioner is not aggrieved by the judgment of the lower Court and he has no locus standi to file cross-objection. It was also rejected on the ground of delay in filing the cross-objection and the fact that security has been filed is also without any direction from the Court below and, therefore, is not very relevant. Technically the petitioner was not a party in the suit, his father who was defendant no. 19 had not appeared or filed his written statement and he died during the pendency of the suit. The trial Court permitted the plaintiff to proceed without substitution in view of Order XXII Rule 4 (4) C. P. C., which left the petitioner without any relief, though, he did file a written statement, which was not accepted. The petitioner being the son of late Sarju Ram has a claim to the property and being an affected person has a right to claim adjudication, but is remedy-less at present. The petitioner being the son of late Sarju Ram has a claim to the property and being an affected person has a right to claim adjudication, but is remedy-less at present. The Court below has, in fact, bolted the petitioner from all sides and now the petitioner has approached this Court invoking extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. I am of the view that the Court should have examined this aspect instead of forming an opinion on technical ground. The Court below was also liable to examine this aspect that the petitioner has all along been deprived of an opportunity of contesting the suit and is running from pillar to post and, therefore, I am of the view that the order dated 20th December, 2011 passed in T.A. No. 1 of 2011 requires reconsideration. In my opinion besides jurisdiction under Article 226 this Court will exercise suo motu jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and in the facts and circumstances of the instant case the lower appellate Court is directed to examine these aspects and the petitioner may take suitable steps, if so advised, to approach the Court with the certified copy of this order. 9. The impugned order dated 20th December, 2011 passed in T.A. No. 1 of 2011 is set at naught. The parties shall produce a certified copy of this order along with an application before the District Judge-II, Garhwa and the Court shall decide the matter afresh after affording an opportunity to the parties expeditiously. 10. With these observations this writ petition is disposed of. Petition disposed of