The present is not a case where the sale deed or the transaction is during the pendency of the suit. Hence, the only bar to the maintainability of the objections under Order XXI Rule 102 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not applicable in the facts of the present case. That being so, the appellant, who has sale deed in his favour prior to the filing of the suit, has a right to prove the same. The basis on which the objections were dismissed, are not enough to throw out the right of the appellant to prove his sale deed. The sale deed of the appellant has been held to be a sham transaction without having recorded any finding. If it was a sham transaction, the same could have been with regard to the entire land i.e. 9 kanals 15 marlas and not just 4 kanals 1 marla. The appellant cannot suffer for the conduct of the judgement-debtor in not having pleaded in his written statement that he has sold the part of the suit property to Gurdial Singh-appellant. It could be that the findings of the Court below are true, however, there may be a chance that the same are not true. Failure to grant an opportunity to the appellant to prove his sale deed may result in miscarriage of justice. Failure on the part of the Courts below to follow the procedure has caused great prejudice to the appellant in the facts of the present case. The judgement relied upon by the respondent in the case of ' Silverline Forum Pvt. Ltd. v. Rajiv Trust and another', AIR 1998 (Supreme Court) 1974 (1) does not help in the facts of the present case. The aforesaid was a case of sub tenant, who had created an other sub tenancy under him so as to bind the landlord. No doubt, it was held that the adjudication need not necessarily involve a detailed enquiry or collection of evidence, but at the same time, it was also observed in paras 12 and 13 of the said judgement that:-
