VASANT APPANNA Vs. GANGADHAR MADHAVRAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by some of the original defendants is directed against the judgment and decree dated 23 2-1974 passed by the Civil Judge, Chikkodi in RA No. 173/72 on his file, dismissing the appeal after dismissing IA. I for addition of original plaintiff No. 2 as respondent in the appeal.

(2.) The plaintiffs instituted a suit for declaration and possession of the suit properties. According to them the plaintiffs and defendants 12 to 18 were the joint owners of the suit properties. The suit was decreed on 22-6 1965 ex parte and the contesting defendants went up in appeal before the learned Civil judge, Belgaum. After the Civil Court was established at Chikodi, it was transferred to the Civil Court, Chikodi as the appeal falls within the jurisdiction of the Civil Court at Chikodi and it was registered as RA No. 173/72 on the file cf the Civil Judge, Chikodi. It was then that IA I was given to the Court for impleading the original second plaintiff as respondent in the appeal. As according to the applicants, his name was not added due to mistake and inadvertence, an application was given under Or. 41, R. 20 of CPC, stating that the second plaintiff is a person interested in the result of the appeal and therefore, tie should be added as a party. The application was resisted. It was contended that, the second plaintiff being a joint owner of the suit properties in whose favour, a decree for possession was passed, he should have been added as a party in the appeal in the first instance only, and that he cannot be described as a person merely interested in the result of the appeal. The decree in his favour had become final there being no appeal within the time prescribed. Therefore, the other side prayed that the application should be dismissed.

(3.) The learned Civil Judge, considering the arguments of the parties at great length, has held that the application would not lie under Or. 41, R. 20 of CPC, as it is hopelessly beyond the period of limitation and as the second plaintiff could not be considered as 0 person merely interested in the result of tbe suit and in that view he dismissed IA I, and having dismissed IA I he dismissed the appeal also as the joint decree in favour of the second plaintiff has become final and as such the appeal is not maintainable. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the present appeal is instituted before this Court by the appellants before the learned Civil Judge.