SURAT SINGH DEAD Vs. MANOHAR LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these appeals a preliminary objection has been taken to the effect that these appeals are not maintainable as one Lt. Col. G. S. Yadav one of the parties to these cases at an earlier stage had not been impleaded. After hearing the counsel for the parties we accept this preliminary objection and dismiss these appeals as having been not properly instituted. We shall now proceed to give our reasons in support of that conclusion.

(2.) We shall first take up Civil Appeal No. 610 of 1966. This appeal arises from a suit instituted by one Surat Singh and others. In that suit Surat Singh was the first plaintiff. The plaintiffs therein claimed a permanent in junction restraining the defendants from interfering with their possession of the suit premises. That suit was substantially dismissed in the trial Court. As against that decision the plaintiffs went up in appeal to the Senior Sub-Judge. Delhi. In the appellate Court the plaintiffs prayed for an amendment of the plaint They sought to include therein a prayer seeking a mandatory injunction requiring the defendants to vacate the building. The learned appellate Judge allowed that application and remanded the suit to the trial Court for a fresh trial.

(3.) As against that decision defendants-respondents went up in appeal to the High Court. During the pendency of the appeal in the High Court Surat Singh died and his legal representatives including Lt. Col. Yadav, his son were brought on record. In the High Court Lt. Col. Yadav was represented by a counsel. The High Court allowed that appeal and dismissed the suit. Civil Appeal No. 610 of 1966 was brought against that decision of the High Court. In this appeal Lt. Col. Yadav has not been made a party. The only explanation offered for not making him a party is that the judgment of the High Court did not show clearly that Lt. Col. Yadav was a party to the appeal. The fact that he was impleaded as party in the appeal was undoubtedly within the knowledge of the appellants. That fact is not denied. Further the certified copy of the order of the High Court, produced along with the appeal memo, clearly shows that Lt. Col. Yadav was represented by a counsel. The appellants have not shown any good ground for not impleading Lt. Col. Yadav as a party in the appeal. He is a necessary party to the appeal. Today an application has been filed for impleading him as a party-respondent in the appeal. It is a highly belated application. On their own showing it is clear that the appellant did not act with due diligence. We do not think that we should entertain that application. In the result Civil Appeal No. 610 of 1966 is dismissed for the reasons mentioned above.