HANIF (DELETED) & ORS Vs. SANT SINGH BAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners were not defendants in the civil suit (now registered as CS SCJ 84034/2016) when it was originally presented against one Hanif shown as second defendant, the prayer being for decree of possession, payment of rent and mesne profits in respect of property described as shop no.8, situated in Khasra No.27, Village Saidulajab, Opposite Saket, New Delhi, the respondent being the plaintiff. The cause title (of the parties) is defective as the reference to the name of deceased Hanif is incorrect and misleading.

(2.) The plaintiff statedly realised the need to implead the petitioners as defendants upon an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) being moved on their behalf seeking impleadment on the ground that they were the party in possession and use of the premises in question. Thus, the plaintiff moved an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC for suitable amendments to the plaint and also to the array of parties. The amendment was allowed by order dated 20.02016.

(3.) It is by virtue of the aforesaid order that the petitioners, then applicants under Order I Rule 10 CPC, became defendant nos.2 to 7 in the suit. The trial court called them upon to submit their written statement. It is clear from a perusal of the proceedings recorded thereafter that the petitioners dragged their feet avoiding to file their written statement. The opportunity for filing written statement stood closed by order dated 005.2016. Though the plaintiff of the suit had submitted at that stage that he was entitled to a decree under Order VIII rule 10 CPC, the matter was adjourned as time was sought by him to come with further documents and for argument to be addressed on the said issue.