NANHEE DEVI Vs. SUMITRA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant civil revision has been filed under section 115 CPC against an order dated 15-4-85 passed by Civil Judge, Bareilly in Original Suit No. 15 of 1976 rejecting an application filed by the plaintiff Nanhee Devi under Order VI Rule 17 CPC for impleading a new defendant Puneet Kumar as defendant No. 4 in the suit.

(2.) THE plaintiff Smt. Nanhee Devi filed a suit (No. 15 of 1976) that she be declared as the owner to the extent of half share of the property in dispute. It was alleged in the plaint that earlier the property in suit was owned by one Jwala Prasad who left two sons Jagannath Prasad and Jagdamba Prasad behind him. On the death of Jwala Prasad the property was inherited by his said two sons. After the death of Jagdamba Prasad his share devolved upon Smt. Bhagwan Devi. When Smt. Bhagwan Devi died, her half share was inherited by her two daughters, namely, plaintiff Nanhee Devi and defendant no. 2 Smt. Satto Devi. Jagdamba Prasad who had been impleaded as defendant no. 1 died on 31-3-76 while his married wife Smt. Hans Mukhi Devi expired on 17-9-70. On the death of Jagdamba Prasad (defendant no. 1) plaintiff and defendant no. 2 became the legal heir. Thus plaintiff claimed half of the share in the property.

(3.) HOWEVER, his mother Nanhee Devi plaintiff filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC for the amendment of the plaint thus arraying Puneet Kumar as a defendant in the suit. This application was again opposed by defendant no. 1/1 Smt. Sumitra Devi on the ground that the application is not maintainable under Order VI Rule 17 CPC as the application of Puneet Kumar filed under Order I Rule 10 CPC for being impleaded as party has already been rejected. It was further alleged that the mother and son are in collusion with each other and in fact the son Puneet Kumar has no cause of action in the suit. The trial court after a careful consideration of the provisions of Order VI Rule 17 CPC came to the conclusion that the application being not meritted deserves to be dismissed and by the order dated 15-4-85 rejected the same. It was held that Puneet Kumar is not a necessary party for the effectual and complete adjudication of the suit. Moreover, the application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC was found to be belated when the suit itself was instituted as early as the year 1976.