KHALIL AHMAD Vs. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE GORAKHPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed against the order of the trial court impleading respondents Nos. 10 and 11 as defendants in the suit and the order passed in revision filed by the petitioners against that order. The parties were im-pleaded by the trial court under Order 1, Rule 10 (2) of .the Code of Civil Procedure and the revisional Court held that the trial court had committed no error of jurisdiction in directing the impleadment.

(2.) THE suit was one for redemp tion of mortgage. One of the mortgagees had died during the pendency of the suit and his heirs had not been impleaded by the plaintiff who was seeking redemp tion. The heirs of the mortgagee were ad mittedly necessary parties in the suit for decision of the controversy. An applica tion had been moved by the plaintiff be yond time for impleading the heirs under Order 22, Rule 4, C.P.C. but that applica tion was dismissed as time barred.

(3.) IN support of his contention to the contrary learned counsel relied upon a decision of this Court in Tularam v. Mangaloo (AIR 1954 All 10). In the case the trial court after dismissing the appli cation for bringing on record the legal representative also rejected the prayer for impleading the person as party under Order 41, Rule 20, C.P.C. Learned coun sel has also relied on the decision in Md. Faruq v. Azizul Hasan, (AIR 1935 Oudh 329). In that case the legal representa tives were sought to be brought on re cord in appeal and it was not allowed. Both these cases deal with the provisions of Order 41, Rule 20 which provides for an entirely different .situation. Rule 20 of Order 41 runs as follows: